DEFENDING GOD'S WORD ONLINE - 02_02

social_media_nav_bar

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW

Part 2 of 6 - LOST in the CONFUSED MIND of a FORMER KJV-ONLY TURNED PENTECOSTAL BIBLE COLLEGE STUDENT

LOST 00 (intro): LOST 01: LOST 02: LOST 03: LOST 04: LOST 05 (Summary): LOST 06:

From: "DH"
Sent: January-11-10 6:01 PM
To: Mike Wright
Subject: Reply

Dear Mike,

"Variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" –The original introduction to the 1611 King James Version of the Bible!

Thank you for your thoughtful, detailed reply! I praise God that you do truly sound like a man such as myself who is more interested in seeking truth rather than simply seeking validation to your own beliefs. I believe that it is only by the God-given humility of Christ that a man can escape the tendency to become prideful, arrogant and closed-minded when confronted with something that questions one of their most cherished convictions.

Please don't be offended or think I am degrading you by using the term KJV only. You said that the KJV is the only Word of God in English and that all of the rest are not. So logically (in my mind) you are a proponent of the KJV Only movement. If my wording doesn't suit you, please bear with me.

I think the ability to have a temporary suspension of judgment is a good thing. It helps to prevent a person from becoming like the J.W. that came to my door a while back. We were having a nice conversation at first but when we began talking about Jesus and I showed her in her own Watchtower version (not a translation) of the Bible where Jesus was in fact declared to be "the God" and where He was worshipped as "the God", she immediately put up a wall and arrogantly proclaimed "I already have truth". Her mind had already been made up by her religious organization. Essentially religion was her god.

I think I should answer your letter one point at a time, starting with a little about me.

1. I attended a Free Methodist church until I was about 12 years old. The pastor and most of the Sunday school teachers preached/taught from the KJV but they did not discredit the NIV or other modern translations. I then attended a southern General Baptist church from my teens until my mid-twenties. There they taught that the only translation of the Bible that was trustworthy was the KJV. They had all of the tracts (I'm sure you've seen them) that showed differences of words between translations but none of them gave textual reasons for those differences or admitted that some of the differences were actually due to KJV errors, instead they used circular reasoning. I have to admit though that their reasoning made sense to a young man who loved and trusted his leaders, knew nothing about textual criticism, Bible languages, or the art of translation between two languages, and had nothing else to go by.

When I was 25, I attended an intensive residential discipleship program through the Assemblies of God for six months. The head pastor preached from the KJV almost exclusively but the other pastors used several translations and encouraged the comparison of them. After leaving, I spent the next few years studying and comparing the doctrines of all of the denominations I had been involved with over the years and comparing them to Scripture. I decided to do like the Bereans and also listen to the wisdom of Proverbs 11:14. For each doctrine I would consult a variety of beliefs and see what their opponents had to say to refute it.

I am presently a ministerial student, majoring in Bible and Theology at [Edited] (an AG school). But I want to be clear in saying that I am not a Baptist, a Methodist, or a Pentecostal; I am a disciple of Jesus Christ, my Lord and Savior and a student of His Word. I am a lover of the God and Truth, not of man-made religion.

"Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety."

-Prov 11:14 (KJV)

One of the most difficult things for me to face was the KJV only controversy. I loved the KJV (and still do) and like you, I saw anything else as a cheap "imitation". This was the one thing that I was not very willing to look at honestly and fairly. I so much wanted to be right in this one thing that for a time I was reluctant to seek the truth of the issue no matter where the truth led me. However when I started studying textual criticism as a preface to learning Koine Greek, all of my prior ignorance started to become clear. I will list some things that I have learned, confirmed, or had to relearn.

· The Word of God in its original tongue is the inspired (God breathed) and infallible and even though the KJV is a good translation of that Word, no translation (including the KJV) is infallible and therefore it cannot be called inspired. All are translated by fallible men and in fact there is no such thing as a perfect translation between two languages, as anyone who speaks more than one language will testify to. I assume that you acknowledge that there are some errors in the KJV; for example Rom 8:16 should read "the Spirit Himself" because that is what all of the Greek manuscripts say and we know from other passages that the Holy Spirit is a Person in the Trinity, not an "it". Do you have any disagreements with anything in this paragraph?

· The King James Version was translated in common everyday language of that time just like the Greek New Testament and Latin Vulgate. That explains the sayings "God forbid" and "Easter" which are not in any of the available manuscripts. The literal Greek renderings would have been less understandable to a 17th century common Englishman. This is not to say that one should not have to "study to shew thyself approved…" (which is a command targeted at leaders), but rather to say the Saving Gospel of Jesus Christ should be made as readily understandable as possible to the seeker. This fight for an understandable translation of the Bible has been repeated other times in the history of the Church before the KJV.

The Bible does not support the idea of withholding God's Saving Gospel, making it difficult to know. Ephesians 1:9 refutes this esoteric idea. "Having made known unto us the mystery of his will, according to his good pleasure…" What was once a mystery has now been made obvious (manifest) unto us the redeemed. Why then should we not make that Gospel as easy to grasp as possible? It really is a simple Gospel when you lay aside all of your religious lingo and traditions.

· Another point is the FACT that languages do change dramatically over time. You can see differences in word usage within the Greek New Testament which was written over a period of only about 60 years, how much greater has our language changed in over 400 years! Elizabethan English is not superior to the person who doesn't understand it (including most that defend the KJV)!

To a person who was not raised in a strong KJV preaching family and church, it truly is a different language. It is one thing for you to say that a fifth grader who was raised hearing the KJV taught frequently can understand it to a good degree, but it is absolutely absurd to say that a fifth grader without such upbringing can understand the KJV any more than they could understand the Geneva Bible or Wycliffe's translation!

· I have found that many heresies have risen and flourished by people who have taken difficult to understand passages of the KJV and basing a new teaching on it (Joseph Smith, Essek W. Kenyon, Kenneth Haggin, etc.) deceiving many in the process because they are reading strictly from an archaic Bible translation. The vast majority of these passages are clearer in modern translation.

· "They took the Blood out of the Bible!" Some make this assertion of modern translations based on Colossians 1:14, where most renderings are typically "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The first question one should ask is "Why then does Ephesians 1:7 have "through His blood" included?" The answer is simple, none of the oldest Greek manuscripts have that clause in Colossians but it is there in the Ephesians passage. The translators have rightly translated both passages. There is no conspiracy to remove Christ's Blood as some say. If there were any conspiracy to do so, do you really think they would ALL have forgot to remove it from Ephesians 1:7, as well as the multitude of other references to Christ's Blood?

· One of the most amazing things I learned was how the acceptance of one translation and the rejection of all others is not a new error! This has been repeated before with the Latin Vulgate and others. Study this out, you'll be shocked!

It reminds me of the modern "Oneness" view of God (U.P.C. et al). This aberrant teaching was proven un-Scriptural and rejected in the early fourth century of the Church and yet it has been embraced once again within the last century. But truly this only confirms that "there is no new thing under the sun"!

4. You don't trust James White. Good, you shouldn't trust James White or me or anyone else but God alone! However that is not a valid reason to refuse to hear what one has to say on a matter. I think his book best addresses and solidly refutes all of the proponents within the KJV only movement, fairly while maintaining academic integrity (a quality I have not seen in most KJV only literature).

5. I listed a few above. Please, allow me to send you this book, read it carefully, and then we can have further discussions about this. Although I am pretty sure you will have a different perspective by then.

a. 3) We're not talking about people seeking a trade; we're talking about Hell-bound sinners in spiritual emergencies who desperately need hope! This is the reality of the Gospel! I minister to homeless people and drug addicts, many can barely read or write. If in one hand I have a Bible such as the CEV which is written at a 4th grade reading level or a NLT written at a 8th grade reading level and in the other hand I have a KJV which is considered 12th grade reading level, which one has the best chance of conveying God's truth to them?

I'm talking about a crack head or a hooker that could overdose or be murdered any moment and has little knowledge of 20th century English and certainly had NO knowledge of 17th century English! If you want to turn them off as just another religious hypocrite, go talk down to them in a language that they don't understand, use all of the archaic religious terminology, and try to force them to read something that they cannot even comprehend. Or you can do as the Lord Jesus and meet them where they are, talk to them on their level, present the Gospel in a way that they understand, and give them a Bible they can read and actually comprehend.

6. As a matter of fact, the NASB in most cases conveys person and especially verb tense at least as well as the KJV.

You said that you are waiting to find The King James Only Controversy at a second hand store but all you have to do is "ask and ye shall receive"! I would happily send it to you IF you will read it in its entirety with an open mind and then share it with someone else who has been deceived like us. Just send me your mailing address and I'll send it to you. I cannot answer you as well as Brother White can in his book. He is very fair and balanced, not mean-spirited or condemning in this book.

If you're curious about which Bible translations I use: I love the KJV for personal devotions. When I am studying Scripture in depth I use many translations but mostly the NASB which is the most accurate literal or formal translation available. For deeper study in the New Testament, I turn to the Novum Testamentum Graece, 27th or UBS, 4th. When I am witnessing or leading a small group of new converts I use either a NLT or a NIV. If I want to know what some interpretations are of some difficult verses I check out some of the paraphrases like AMP or The Message, however I bear in mind that much of its content is the translator's opinion of what the verse means. There are some translations that I do not like personally but there is only one that I know to be corrupt and that is the J.W.s intentionally corrupted New World Translation (NWT).

May God bless you in all truth and love in Christ Jesus!

"DH"

One more thing:

If only the King James is the real Word of God, which edition is the right one: the actual 1611 which includes the Apocrypha, the 1762 Cambridge revision, the 1769 Oxford version or one of the several revisions in between? What most people ignorantly call the 1611 AV is really either the later Cambridge or Oxford version; they are not identical. If only one is the real Word of God, which one is it? See the problem here.

May the Lamb that was slain receive the reward of His suffering!

From: Mike
Sent: January-12-10 9:22 PM
To: "DH"
Subject: King James Evidence that Demands a Verdict

"DH",

1. There are few who devote the time to reason through difficult issues with others. You appear to be one of them; and if so, I commend you.

2. At some point, we may need to focus in on one aspect of this issue at a time, given the overall complexity and given the fact that you opened up a series of fronts on this issue this time – all of which are important and many of which deserve thoughtful reply. Yes, I will sincerely hear you out; and I trust you are one who is capable and willing to reciprocate on that honest consideration of the evidence.

3. I intend to address your reply, point-by-point, as thoroughly as possible, and will leave your original email intact at the bottom.

4. You wrote:

a. We have a series of videos (13, so far) addressing J.W. doctrine, on various media sharing websites. We have a good collection of Watchtower literature, Mormon, Islamic and quite a few cultic teachings and videos from other cults, dozens of bibles, dozens of new versions.

b. So, I understand, and empathize with you in your desire to meet with others (at your doorstep or otherwise), to research opposing viewpoints, and to "be ready always to give an answer to every man that asketh you a reason of the hope that is in you with meekness and fear" (I Pet 3:15). Likewise, I care deeply for their souls; particularly for those who are trapped or deceived in their religion by others who knowingly choose to be blind. (There's no man so blind as one who WILL not see; right?)

5. You wrote:

I think I should answer your letter one point at a time, starting with a little about me.

a. Briefly, I first heard the gospel in the late 1960's at a vacation bible class, repented from my sin and asked the Lord, Jesus Christ, to be my Saviour, in 1970. For the 33 years from 1969 to 2002, I attended about 50 Pentecostal churches from coast to coast in Canada and a few in the United States. ("Attended" is not the correct word. I was Pentecostal by label, not really by experience, but there were usually few if any others who were more involved in the assemblies.)

b. So, without elaborating further, I will simply ask that you accept my understanding and exposure to Pentecostal doctrine and experiences as being full and well-understood – from the true Pentecost of Acts 2 to the present – and that you equally accept them in regard to the modern Pentecostal movement, effectively from Charles Parham et al to the present.

c. Having left the Pentecostal denomination in 2002, for doctrinal reasons, I am now grieved to hear that you are subject to its teachings and to the men whose goal it is to advance those teachings. We have home-churched our children for the past eight years. Spiritual starvation had been one of the most obvious outcomes of our 'fellowship' in Pentecostal circles. Coupled with the lack of anyone willing to examine doctrines and practices for truth in such circles, we embarked on a life-changing journey that is almost impossible to describe.

d. I should say that, in those 33 years, I was never taught anything that even resembled KJV-onlyism. In fact, from about 1974 onwards, new versions were simply available as alternatives and were researched and preached as the words of God, with the same sense of normalcy that is evident in your writing. I should also say that this bothered me from time to time. Among other experiences, I remember when:

1) As early as 1970, the Pastor would have us "read the scriptures together" and we would all stand and read in unison, the King James Bible. The whole concept of "division" wasn't an issue then. But it became an issue as new versions appeared, and I have asked myself many times how it is that others can honestly blame that division on those of us who have continued reading and believing that "word of God" that we all used to read in unison, together.

2) In reply to my question about biblical accuracy, my Pastor said that he believed the J.B. Phillips bible to be the most accurate. Sometime later he began using the New King James. Later, he had a New Living translation, and my mother had bought copies of it for herself and for my sisters. I began to understand that the sheep were repeatedly forced to purchase copies of the newest version of God's word, if they wanted to be able to follow the studies and sermons preached by 'scholarship-sensitive' pastors. Again, it was odd to realize that the bible that had generated salvation and life in me just wasn't good enough any more to meet the needs of these "modern men and women of today".

3) So, what can a person do about that, I wondered. If you ask a group of men which bible they believe to be the 'best', you will typically get answers as diverse as opinions given about politics, sports or vehicle manufacturers and models. The most scholarly men typically desire to be seen as evaluating an eclectic mix of texts, which has left me wondering what or who really is the final authority in their lives. I have come to believe that a final authority is a FINAL authority, and a man choosing one text over another, then a third over the second, ad infinitum, and one who regularly draws from a pool of such conflicting texts has – in simple fact – appointed HIMSELF as his OWN final authority.

6. You wrote:

a. Yes, I do. It is odd that you would identify 'textual criticism' as the beginning of the end of your 'prior ignorance'. I have always understood that a fundamental scriptural principle was to study (II Tim 2:15) what was actually written in God's word and then to believe it; not to doubt it, nor to question it. (Is it not rather Satan's method to question, "Yea, hath God said?") Moreover, and in contrast, I have always understood that another fundamental scriptural principle was to 'critically analyze' what MEN SAY about God's word (Acts 17:11).

b. "DH", as the greatest of all teachers (John 14:26; I John 2:27), it was not the Holy Spirit who taught you, "The Word of God in its original tongue is the inspired (God breathed) and infallible". That is a well-worn teaching of men.

1) First of all, no scripture is inspired. The bible says that all scripture IS GIVEN by inspiration; not that it is inspired. We must teach what God's word says; not what men say that God's word says.

2) Nowhere in the bible does God restrict his word to an "original tongue". On the contrary:

a) In Genesis chapters 42-44, Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian. His words were translated by a translator into Hebrew. (Gen 42:23) Those Hebrew words were then written in the Old Testament Hebrew that you claim is perfect and infallible. You can't have it both ways. This passage is either perfect and infallible in the Hebrew scripture, or it has lost something because it is merely a Hebrew translation of the words that the Holy Ghost divinely inspired Joseph to speak in Egyptian (II Pet 1:21). (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect and infallible?)

b) In Acts 22, Paul spoke to the Jews completely in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). But Luke wrote those words in Greek in the New Testament which you claim is perfect and infallible. You can't have it both ways. It is either perfect and infallible in the Greek New Testament scripture, or it has lost something in the translation from Hebrew to Greek because it is merely a translation. (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect and infallible?)

c) On the day of Pentecost, the disciples spoke in tongues (languages) as the Spirit gave them utterance. They spoke in the tongues of men "out of every nation under heaven", "the wonderful works of God." You can't get any plainer than that. The Holy Ghost inspired the proclamation of God's word in EVERY tongue.

d) I could cite other passages where pagan kings and foreign persons (in Babylon, Persia, etc) spoke in other tongues that were translated into Hebrew or Greek, but more examples are unnecessary.

e) Clearly, the scriptural pattern – as found in our final authority - is that God considers his translations of his word to be as pure and perfect as that which was spoken in the original tongue.

f) Therefore, it is a teaching of men, not of the Holy Spirit that, "no translation (including the KJV) is infallible"

g) And, it is a teaching of men, not of the Holy Spirit that, "there is no such thing as a perfect translation between two languages, as anyone who speaks more than one language will testify to." We need to believe the testimony of the Holy Spirit (John 15:26; John 14:26; I John 2:27) in this matter; not the testimony of men.

c. No, you are wrong to assume that I "acknowledge that there are some errors in the KJV; for example Rom 8:16…"

1) First, my FINAL authority says, the Spirit of adoption "itself". If I dispute what it says, then I would be lying by claiming that the bible is my final authority. Final authority is FINAL authority.

2) I have every reason to believe what is written, and every reason to doubt men who say that God's word is wrong. I am not a Greek scholar and don't need to be. God gave me his pure and perfect word in English.

3) Secondly, if I pretend that I know another translation to be a "better" translation of "the Greek" in this passage, then I am setting myself up as a judge of both God's word and of translators who were more scholarly than either you or I.

4) Finally, if one chooses to research why the translators may have chosen this pronoun "itself" in Rom 8:16, there are several reasons that would justify their selection, to which I credit David Cloud and Will Kinney for providing the primary research:

a) If you think that "auto to pneuma" means "the Spirit himself", rather than "the Spirit itself", even though "auto" is a neuter pronoun, then you are free to believe whatever those men have told you. But, the fact remains that the King James translators accurately translated the Greek passage, whether we understand why that word was there in the Greek or not. (And I accept your claim that "auto" is absent from the Alexandrian manuscripts; but not that it is absent from "all" manuscripts. It was present in the manuscript used by the translators.) And I would rather trust a bible that has proven to be true in every case where I could have proven it to be true or false, then trust men who wrote new versions that I easily and frequently have proven to be false in many places.

b) The Random House Webster's College Dictionary of 1999 lists under the second definition of 'itself' -- 'used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context.' Examples given are: 'Who is it? It is John.' Did you see the baby? Yes, isn't it cute.' The Webster's 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines 'it' as 'a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.'

c) The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context. ...

d) Personhood does not require the use of a gender-specific personal pronoun.

e) The NASB and NIV, in both of Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26, speak of a 'spirit that takes along with it seven other spirits more wicked than ITSELF.' So, it would be inconsistent, at best, to accuse the King James translators of committing error on this basis while upholding NASB or NIV as 'better' translations that commit the same 'offence'.

f) "All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20 the angel of the Lord says to Joseph, 'fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.' Notice the angel does not say 'he,' but 'that which': it is neuter both in Greek and in English.

g) In Luke 1:35 the angel says to Mary, 'The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.' That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh.

h) "The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. 'That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.' Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person.

i) In 1 John 5:4 we are told: 'WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world.' This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing?" (Kinney, "The Spirit Itself").

j) Are you "born of God", "DH"? If so, then you too would be a neuter "thing" on the basis of the gender-neutral reasoning that you are proposing. So, I would propose, instead, that we faithfully accept the text of God's word as our FINAL authority and BELIEVE what it says. There's nothing wrong with trying to understand it, but there is something wrong with criticizing it ("textual criticism) and changing it. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you. (Deut 4:2)

7. You wrote:

a. No, the King James Bible wasn't translated into the "everyday" language of that time.

1) It was written in English for the common man of all times who reads English. It was BIBLICAL English; NOT the "everyday language of that time" and NOT "Elizabethan English".

2) Shakespeare was in the prime of his career at the time that King James commanded the publishing of the Authorized Bible (1605-1611). Therefore, Shakespeare's writing would provide perhaps the best evidence to refute this argument that King James English was 17th century English, or Elizabethan English. Let's look at the use of pronouns for an example. I trust you have read my article on this already, as Pronouns alone prove that ONLY the King James Bible can be God's word in English.

3) Now look at the writing of Shakespeare and realize that people DID NOT speak with this precise pronominal language in the time of King James: http://shakespeare.mit.edu/ The King James Bible uses BIBLICAL English.

b. Have you researched this issue of modern words and expressions in the bible to find out which version is actually more up to date, "DH"?

1) If it is important to you, I will prepare a list of biblical expressions that prove the King James Bible is FAR more up-to-date than any new version is today.

2) For one obvious example, how many "common everyday" people have you heard at work telling someone to "Go to Hades"? You mentioned your ministry to homeless people, drug addicts and hookers. What word are they likely to use? King James English? 17th Century English? Elizabethan English? …………or the more modern, up-to-date, UNDERSTANDABLE NIV/NASB word "Hades"? (- in the passages where it replaces Hell.). We need to learn the facts, and to be honest with the facts, and to stop listening to these men who come in the spirit of "Yea, hath God said?"

c. So, which is it?

1) Did God command US to "study to shew thyself approved…" (which is a command targeted at leaders),

2) Or was that just "a command targeted at leaders"?

3) If you believe the liberal scholars who spend their days criticizing God's text, then you will embrace this teaching that – because Paul was writing to Timothy - it was Timothy (i.e. church leaders) who is being directly commanded to "study". (That is also convenient because it would keep the sheep ignorant of God's word and dependent upon the interpretation and teachings of those 'leaders' who supposedly follow God's command to study. Doesn't this bring to mind the methods and the attitudes of the Pharisees…. And the Pope?)

4) Better yet, the side benefit of this teaching is the realization that God was really only targeting the "leaders" with his command to Timothy to "flee youthful lusts" and the temptations and snares and "many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition."

5) I would suspect that this teaching would be embraced enthusiastically in 'seeker-sensitive' churches like those of Joel Osteen and Rick Warren et al.

d. Do you really believe that, "This fight for an understandable translation of the Bible has been repeated other times in the history of the Church before the KJV."?

1) I don't. From the day that God commanded Adam not to eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil (Gen 2:16-17) until today, God's word has been perfectly clear.

2) The problem is that man just doesn't want to accept "thou shalt not".

e. If anything withholds "God's Saving Gospel, making it difficult to know", the new versions do. As one blatant example, look at Matt 28:11 in the NIV. It is completely absent and void. What should it say? It should give HOPE to that homeless person. It should give HOPE to that drug addict. It should give HOPE to that hooker, because it declares the very PURPOSE that Jesus (God in the flesh) came to this earth: "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." But these new versions are without that hope.

8. You wrote:

a. "DH", have you taken any courses in formal logic? It is non-sequitur to argue that the King James Bible must be re-translated on the basis of changes made to the language.

b. It is also inconsistent and hypocritical to argue that God's book should be re-translated into modern English, without arguing with equal fervour that the works of Shakespeare and Homer and John Bunyan ALSO be modernized. That would be equally ridiculous, of course.

c. It is the ultimate prerogative of the AUTHOR to decide what content and what manner of expression/language he will publish under HIS NAME.

d. I was not raised in a strong KJV preaching family, or church, and I have had NO instruction on the issue but what I sought and researched as an adult, in order to understand the issue. I have read and understood the language of my King James bible since the age of eight as well as (I would argue "better" than) any child could read and understand words in the NIV like: "filigree" (Ex 28:20), "pinions" (Deut 32:11), "blunted" (Ps 58:7), "Nubians" (Dan 11:43), "cors" (I Kings 4:22), "portico" (I Kings 6:3), "poultice" (II Kings 20:7), "satraps" (Est 3:12), "portent" (Is 20:3), "mina" (Luke 19:6), or "carnelian".

e. If it is "absolutely absurd to say that a fifth grader without such upbringing can understand the KJV", then the Gideon's research and ministry was faulty for decades, given that they issued King James bible New Testaments to every fifth grade student in this country (including me) for DECADES on the basis of research that the King James bible reads at that level and that students are at an optimal age and skill level at that point to most benefit from such a piece of literature (to say nothing of the fact that the Holy Ghost would thereafter take that word of God and lead the child into all truth.)

9. You wrote:

I have found that many heresies have risen and flourished by people who have taken difficult to understand passages of the KJV and basing a new teaching on it (Joseph Smith, Essek W. Kenyon, Kenneth Haggin, etc.) deceiving many in the process because they are reading strictly from an archaic Bible translation. The vast majority of these passages are clearer in modern translation.

a. I challenge you to present one heresy that is attributable to the "archaic" nature of the King James Bible.

b. I was raised on Kenyon, Hagin, Copeland, et al in the Word-Faith movement, and many other heretics in the Pentecostal denomination. (God graciously protected my sincere and trusting heart from embracing those heresies to my destruction.) NONE of these heresies arose because of difficulty understanding passages in the King James Bible. They arose because:

1) the proponents had/have a love of money and found a clever way to acquire that money by packaging and marketing their flesh-pleasing heresy in books and tapes,

2) neither the proponents of those heresies, nor their audiences took time or interest in rightly dividing the word of truth;

3) to the extent that they did not understand God's word, it was because they did not "obey" it by "study" and by being "doers"; not because it was too difficult to comprehend. Again, people understand "thou shalt not" very clearly, but they prefer to understand it "in another way". They understand that the love of money is the root of all evil, but they will gladly embrace the doctrine that wealth is a sign of God's blessing on a person and endorsement of a ministry.

4) The Hardy Boy book series is "clearer" and "easier to understand" than the King James Bible is, and it is about as readable as the NIV series of books, but it is also equally useless in providing truth to starving souls.

5) Perceived readability is no measure of truth and it is certainly no substitute for it.

10. You wrote:

"They took the Blood out of the Bible!" Some make this assertion of modern translations based on Colossians 1:14, where most renderings are typically "In whom we have redemption, the forgiveness of sins." The first question one should ask is "Why then does Ephesians 1:7 have "through His blood" included?" The answer is simple, none of the oldest Greek manuscripts have that clause in Colossians but it is there in the Ephesians passage. The translators have rightly translated both passages. There is no conspiracy to remove Christ's Blood as some say. If there were any conspiracy to do so, do you really think they would ALL have forgot to remove it from Ephesians 1:7, as well as the multitude of other references to Christ's Blood?

a. "DH", you are parroting all of the excuses and arguments of the liberal scholars! I thought you "understood" the reasons why the King James Bible was God's word and you had rejected those reasons when the daylight of "textual criticism" dawned on the ignorance of your darkened archaic KJV-only mind. (How many of those excuses and arguments have I addressed so far? And there are MANY to go.)

b. OK; here we go:

1) What do you mean by the "oldest Greek manuscripts"? The fact is that you mean Vaticanus, right?

2) Why do you suppose that it is the "oldest"? (I thought you used to believe as I do; therefore you should understand the reasons.) Isn't it true that the manuscripts that were regularly used became worn out? Isn't it true that new copies were made to replace the old, worn out ones? Isn't it true that the early Christians recognized the heresies in Vaticanus, Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus and other corrupted texts and therefore DIDN"T USE THEM? Isn't that why the "oldest" extant Greek manuscripts are the heretical ones?

3) You didn't say that they were the "best" Greek manuscripts, but the words "oldest and best" are almost always used together in advancing this argument, and you obviously imply that they were the "best" or else you wouldn't criticize the current text and claim that the "oldest" text is more reliable. So, I ask: Who says that the "oldest Greek manuscripts" are the best and most reliable? Does the Holy Spirit, the great teacher, say that? No. Certainly not. God is not the author of confusion and there is contradiction between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus in 3,000 places in the four gospels alone.

c. Think about what you are saying, "DH" - "most renderings are typically…"? Since when does God base TRUTH on popular opinion? Since when does God base TRUTH on what MOST scholars say? Is it not true that MOST people will follow the broad way to destruction and that few will find the narrow way to everlasting life? Is it not true that MOST people died in the flood and only few were saved? Is it not true that MOST people failed to recognize Jesus as the Messiah? Then why would you think that what MOST scholars or translations might say would be a valid measurement of whether a text constitutes the TRUTH of GOD'S WORD?

1) This is an appropriate time for me to comment on your repeated reference to the concept of multiple opinions and/or counsellors at: Prov 11:14: Where no counsel is, the people fall: but in the multitude of counsellors there is safety.

2) This passage taken alone may well appear to support what you say, but it cannot be taken alone. I have just listed examples of how the context of scripture rejects the MANY in favour of the FEW. We have to compare scripture with scripture. Clearly, it is possible to have a multitude of false counsellors, isn't it? So, this verse is not making a statement about the veracity of an issue on the basis of the number of people who embrace a particular opinion. Rather, this verse presupposes that the "many" counsellors are wise and godly counsellors, and it simply teaches that a multitude of such counsellors will, together, provide safety against a fall.

3) If this were not so, then the children of Israel had scriptural authority (by your reasoning) to heed the counsel of the 400 prophets of Baal, because they constituted a "multitude of counsellors" whereas Elijah was merely one counsellor with one opinion.

d. You asked why the phrase "through His blood" is included in Eph 1:7 but not in Col 1:14 and claim that the reason is simple – that "none of the oldest Greek manuscripts have that clause in Colossians but it is there in the Ephesians passage". "DH", the King James translators did not use Vaticanus; nor did they use any of the other "oldest and 'best' Greek manuscripts". The translators used the manuscripts that were given by inspiration of the Holy Ghost and were received and accepted by the early church as true copies of God's word.

11. You wrote:

One of the most amazing things I learned was how the acceptance of one translation and the rejection of all others is not a new error! This has been repeated before with the Latin Vulgate and others. Study this out, you'll be shocked!

a. I am not easily shocked. There was nothing wrong with the Latin Vulgate. It was only when Jerome decided to make HIS OWN version of the Latin Vulgate (hence "Jerome's Latin Vulgate") that heresy was introduced into the text (in that case, the beginnings of Catholic heresies).

b. Likewise, there was nothing wrong with the Authorized version of God's word in English. It has only been since Westcott and Hort (primarily) that others introduced heresy into the English text because they wanted the text to read THEIR WAY, in THEIR version, rather than reading and believing what God had already declared. That pattern has not only continued but has reproduced faster than Easter bunnies - to the extent that we see new bible versions being produced every year.

c. If you set aside what 'scholarly' men have told you for a minute and think about what the bible actually says, you will realize that God made a habit of sticking with his words. Among other things, he didn't make a habit of contradicting himself (as new versions do), didn't make a habit of making mathematical errors (as new versions do), and didn't make a habit of leaving out important parts of his message like the complete verses of: Matt 17:21, Matt 18:11, Matt 23:14, Mark 7:16, Mark 9:44, Mark 9:46, Mark 11:26, Mark 15:28, Luke 17:36, Luke 23:17, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, Acts 15:34, Acts 24:7, Acts 28:29, Romans 16:24, and 1 John 5:7 (as new versions do).

12. You wrote:

You don't trust James White. Good, you shouldn't trust James White or me or anyone else but God alone! However that is not a valid reason to refuse to hear what one has to say on a matter. I think his book best addresses and solidly refutes all of the proponents within the KJV only movement, fairly while maintaining academic integrity (a quality I have not seen in most KJV only literature).

a. "DH", I don't refuse to hear anyone who wishes to discuss God's word, or who has an opposing viewpoint. I spend more time examining opposing viewpoints than anyone else I know and I spend hours corresponding with and/or visiting with J.W.s or people in other cults.

b. As I told you, the reason I don't have James' book is because I gave it away to friends who wanted to research both sides of the issue - as I was doing. Unfortunately, they didn't return the book.

c. But, I should say, as well, that I had bought his book and started to read it BEFORE I knew anything about the "KJV-Only" movement or any of its teachers. I had no loyalties to anyone at the time, because I knew of none of them. But, as I read the first few pages of James White's book, I was put off by his attitude and distain for his opponents, contrary to the esteem with which you appear to afford him in reading the same book. That was about 14 years ago, and I am certainly willing to give it another shot (as I said, I have been looking for it), but I have spent many hours (about 3 hours yesterday, in fact - completely independently of my correspondence with you) reviewing videos that he has posted online. I have probably spent a couple of hundred hours listening to him, and I must say that the better part of it has reinforced that first impression I had of him, by way of introduction in reading the first few pages of his book.

13. You wrote:

I listed a few above. Please, allow me to send you this book, read it carefully, and then we can have further discussions about this. Although I am pretty sure you will have a different perspective by then.

And you wrote later:

a. I will definitely get a copy of it and will read it through with an open mind. But I cannot agree to your condition of passing it along to others afterwards, because I now believe that he teaches heresy and I regret having given away my first copy; so I will get a copy from the library for now.

b. Please don't think that this negates my ability to read his book with an open mind. The fact is, I don't want to be wrong, and I always consider each point from the perspective of "what if this is right, and I am wrong?" Judges have personal opinions on almost every case they hear, but must set their views aside and judge the case on the merits of the evidence. That is exactly what I do; and that is what I trust you are willing to do.

c. The reason I simply doubt that reading his book will change anything is because I have already examined much of the evidence that James White is likely to have put in his book – and possibly more recent information than was in that now-dated book. I have read his articles and have watched many of his videos, and have listened to many of his radio broadcasts. It doesn't take too long to understand the key points that he uses repeatedly in his arguments. But, I am certainly willing to sift through his other arguments as well.

d. "DH", I think you don't know James White very well.

1) You call him "brother" White, implying that you are both Christians. He may return the gesture and call you "brother" [Name Edited], at least upon first meeting you, but it wouldn't be a sincere gesture once he knew your beliefs. Unless you are a Calvinist (which is unlikely, given that you are attending an AG seminary), then James White would not consider you to be a true Christian, or would believe that you are not a Christian "yet", at least. You would have to probe him vigorously to get this admission, but if you say that you don't believe in the "Doctrines of Grace" and ask him if, as a result, you would not be saved upon your immediate death, he would eventually have to admit that, "No, you would not be saved."

2) So, James White would not be able to honestly call you his Christian "Brother".

3) I don't know how familiar you are with the teachings of Calvinism (Adherents prefer the titles, "the Doctrines of Grace", "the GOSPEL", "the TRUTH of Scripture" and other such euphemisms), but being that you are in seminary, I would think that you have had exposure to systematic theology at some point. Given that most of the Pentecostals I know would consider Calvinists to be Christians; I am inclined to believe that there is ignorance in our bible colleges and seminaries about the true nature of the teachings.

4) If you cut through the smokescreen of those who re-shape Calvinistic teachings into one-point Calvinism, three-point Calvinism, five-point Calvinism, hyper-Calvinism, or any of the other variants, and simply read what the core beliefs are in Calvin's Institutes (or an accurate summary of the beliefs as represented by the word T-U-L-I-P), then you would know that the five-point doctrines are irreducibly interdependent. You would know that the God of Calvinism is not the God of the Christian bible, and that the gospel of Calvinism is not the gospel of the Christian bible.

5) These may seem to be divisive, narrow-minded or mean-spirited statements to make to you, but I assure you they are not meant to be. THESE ARE WHAT THE CALVINIST TEACHERS THEMSELVES SAY. In fact, teachers like Dr. Matthew McMahon (http://www.apuritansmind.com/) go so far as to say that the deepest, darkest, hottest sections of Hell are reserved for people like me who reject the "Doctrines of Grace". To them, Calvinism is Christianity. Christianity is Calvinism. The Doctrines of Grace are the Gospel, and vice versa. So, if THEIR teachers proclaim these things, I am left to conclude that Calvinism is "another" gospel about which Paul warned us. (Gal 1:8,9)

6) Dr. James White is unapologetically a Calvinist, and he is a well-known apologist for its doctrines. As I said, it would take some vigorous probing to make him admit that he doesn't consider you or me to be saved. He is a master at word-smithing and evasiveness. But almost all Calvinistic leaders avoid this confrontation anyway. It is their belief that – if you are one of the elect – you will eventually accept the Doctrines of Grace, and – if you are not one of the elect – too bad for you. So, there is no urgency for them to persuade you of the gospel (as they see it); it is only necessary for them to present that gospel to you. And, if they really believed their own doctrine (as many of them do), it isn't even necessary for them to present the gospel to you, because your salvation or damnation is pre-established/pre-destinated, regardless of anything that you (OR they) do anyway.

7) So, if James White is right, then he is not your "brother", unless you too are a Calvinist; and then you would only be "Christian brothers" in the eyes of likeminded Calvinists and of ignorant others.

14. You wrote:

We're not talking about people seeking a trade; we're talking about Hell-bound sinners in spiritual emergencies who desperately need hope! This is the reality of the Gospel! I minister to homeless people and drug addicts, many can barely read or write. If in one hand I have a Bible such as the CEV which is written at a 4th grade reading level or a NLT written at a 8th grade reading level and in the other hand I have a KJV which is considered 12th grade reading level, which one has the best chance of conveying God's truth to them?

a. "Hell-bound" sinners? Well, if you're right about the new versions, I suppose they would understand you better if you told them they were "Hades-bound".

b. Where did you get your statistics on the reading levels of the versions?

c. In contrast to your claims, I understand that the King James Bible is superior to all versions for its readability, and that it ranks at a grade 5 level (Just as the Gideon's would claim). There are very good scientific and pedagogic reasons for this.

d. I would think that Dr. Rudolf Flesch would be a credible, unbiased authority on this matter. Dr. Flesch is the leading authority, researcher and author on readability studies, and is the originator of the famous Flesch-Kincaid readability standards. http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjv_easy.html

e. What is the documentation, and credentials of the authority, for your claims that the King James reads at a grade 12 level?

f. You denigrate the word of God and misrepresent the Lord's use of scripture in your – obviously emotional; perhaps bitter – description of 'religious hypocrites' who use the King James and of the Lord Jesus who (you claim) wouldn't.

g. The fact is that the law of the Lord is perfect, converting the soul. (Ps 19:7) Jesus said, "Ye must be born again". (John 3:7) Man shall not live by bread alone, but by EVERY word of God. (Luke 4:4) (The last part of which is the SOLUTION for the HOPE of the Hooker and drug addict "but by every word of God", but IS ABSENT from this verse in the NIV and NASB.)

15. You wrote:

As a matter of fact, the NASB in most cases conveys person and especially verb tense at least as well as the KJV.

a. "DH", how can you say such a thing? I just sent you a link to my article on pronouns in the King James Bible. The evidence is plainly before your eyes; and is irrefutable, because it is has nothing to do with opinion. It is pure fact.

1) Every time the NASB says, "You" instead of "Ye", it does NOT accurately convey person. The King James does.

2) Every time the NASB says, "You" instead of "Thou", it does NOT accurately convey person. The King James does.

3) Every time the NASB says, "You" instead of "Thee", it does NOT accurately convey person. The King James does.

4) I could go on with thy, thine, thyself, etc.

5) Every time the NASB omits "EST", it does NOT accurately convey person (and sometimes tense). The King James does.

6) Every time the NASB omits "ETH", it does NOT accurately convey person (and sometimes tense). The King James does.

b. Now "DH", you are free to believe whatever you wish, but if you deny what I have just written, then:

1) You do not understand the English words in my article (which would be surprising because they aren't "17th century English"), or

2) You do not understand the rules of English grammar (which would make me wonder how you are in seminary), or

3) You are not being honest with me (which would make me very sorry for you), or

4) For some reason, you WANT to believe something other than the truth (and you would be no different than that J.W. at your door.)

c. Given that there are over 31,000 verses in the bible, I would estimate that there are more than 10,000 pronouns in these categories and another 20,000 verbs in these categories. So, on this issue alone, there are TENS of THOUSANDS of examples of where the King James Bible is accurate and the NASB is NOT accurate.

d. So how can you make such an ignorant claim, after I brought these facts to your attention !!??

16. You wrote:

a. You can claim that you "love" the KJV for personal devotions (or otherwise), but the fact is that anyone who "loves" the KJV (or anything else for that matter) would not say that someone who uses it turns people off just like another "religious hypocrite" and wouldn't disparage it with such pejorative terms as "archaic religious terminology" or "17th century English" or "Elizabethan English".

b. You simply aren't being honest in making that claim, "DH".

c. Even if you did "love" it, the proof of that would also be in whether you BELIEVE it, and the fact is that you do not believe it. If you dispute that, you do so in ignorance because (and I won't take time to make an exhaustive list):

1) The Authorized bible claims in Ps 12:6,7 that God will preserve his WORDS, and you don't believe that. (If he preserved his WORDS, where are they?) New versions claim he will preserve "us"; not his words.

2) The Authorized bible claims in Deuteronomy and in Hebrews (Heb 3:16) that not all those who came out of Egypt provoked, but the new versions say that all did. (And they present it in the form of a question rather than a statement. That is neither an honest, nor an accurate translation.)

3) The Authorized Bible has many complete verses that don't even appear in the new versions. They are blank – with verse numbers to identify the blank verse.

4) The Authorized bible says that we live by EVERY WORD of God, but obviously, you don't believe that, in the least because you accept these empty verses and because you accept different and conflicting words.

d. You say that, "the NASB which is the most accurate literal or formal translation available"???

1) Says who?

2) What's the proof?

3) I just gave you TENS of THOUSANDS of examples that prove it is NOT the most accurate or formal translation, and that doesn't even scratch the surface of the proofs available, and it only represents a couple of the issues that I have selected to prove to you. Where's YOUR proof?

e. You say, "When I am witnessing or leading a small group of new converts I use either a NLT or a NIV."

1) Do you know the difference between an "angel" and an "eagle"? (Are you offended that I would ask? You shouldn't be. The NLT is one of the versions that you consider to be your 'BEST bible versions' to train new converts.)

2) The Authorized Bible says, "angel" in Rev 8:13; the NLT says "eagle". Do you suppose this might cause "confusion" in your new converts?

3) Is God confused? If not; which word did he say, "eagle" or "angel"?

4) Do you BELIEVE the bible when it says we live by EVERY word of God, or do you only "love" it, but don't BELIEVE it? IF you LOVE it and BELIEVE it, then which word did God say, "DH" – "eagle" or "angel"???

5) How many proofs would you need before you accept the fact that neither the NLT nor the NIV are accurate copies of God's word?

f. How do you know that the NWT is "intentionally corrupted"??

g. Do you have any idea how similar the "intentionally corrupted" NWT is to the "accurate" copy of God's word that you claim to have in the NIV?? The evidence is abundant and easily researched, "DH". On the issue of the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ alone, look at the doctrine taught in the NIV and compare it with the "intentionally corrupted" NWT of the Jehovah's Witnesses: http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/deity.htm

h. Given that you have demonstrated a lack of understanding of these basic reasons why ONLY the King James bible can be God's word in English (and we haven't started yet; seriously, at all) and given that you have demonstrated a profound ability to recite the standard excuses in favour of new versions, and given that you obviously did not read or understand my article about pronouns (which both proves my claims and somewhat proves your lack of interest in knowing the truth), I am very much inclined to believe that you were NEVER taught about the King James bible in your teens and twenties, or you didn't pay attention, or you don't remember, or you never believed what you were taught in the first place.

i. The evidence simply doesn't support your claims, or your story, "DH".

17. "DH", you have exposed yourself to the teaching of liberal scholars who proudly esteem 'textual criticism' as an honourable and scholarly practice; contrary to the simple faith and obedience taught in God's word for men of all walks of life and men of every 'degree'. Consequently, your faith has been shaken (if you had truly believed before what you claim to have believed). Doubts have been sown in your heart and mind. You would deny that, but only because, after sowing those doubts, those liberal scholars have moved in to 'enlighten' you with the fruit of their scholarship, making you believe that you are now "no longer" in ignorance. I grieve for you, and for all who have had their faith in God's word undermined by proud men who question, criticize and change God's word, at their own pompous will.

18. I am willing to invest all the time in the world to discuss things with honest people, "DH"; but if you make statements like you did in paragraph 15 above (and several other comments), then you are seriously lacking in ability to think (in which case I can't help you), or in willingness to think (in which case I won't help you); or you are dishonest, or you are deceived.

19. But I have a hard time believing that anyone can honestly read through the evidence that I provided; ignore thousands of examples of proof (in this case I mean the pronouns and verbs, among others) and respond – with no countering reason; nor offsetting proofs to that evidence - with nothing more than a regurgitated opinion that flies in the face of that evidence and dogmatically proclaims (without regard or response to that evidence) that the NASB in most cases conveys person and especially verb tense at least as well as the KJV. That is simply blind obedience to a preconceived opinion, "DH".

I sincerely hope you will read through all of my comments above, and will prove yourself – whether you hold the truth - with honesty and reason.

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)

Mike.

GO TO NEXT/PREVIOUS:

LOST 00 (intro): LOST 01: LOST 02: LOST 03: LOST 04: LOST 05 (Summary): LOST 06: