64 Bible Corrector Questions [2 of 2]
Sep 11, 2003 01:28 PDT
BARRY THE BIBLE CORRECTOR'S
[Part Two: Questions 30 to 64]
By Herb Evans
Miguel Jurna posted these questions from Barry Davis the
Bible Corrector's E-mail List (email@example.com) to the BBFI Open
List, and requested that someone answer them. We could not resist the
challenge. We answered most of the questions off the cuff with the
exception of the manuscript study questions and the Greek study questions
and the historical dates. Most of Barry's questions are loaded and
opinionated, which resulted in some opinionated answers. We knew that Barry
was setting a trap with many of the questions, but approached them one by
one without peeking at the ones that followed. To our surprise, we were
consistent throughout, having to make only minor changes to our rough
draft. Later, we added the scripture verses to each answer. Also, we
implemented a few suggestions and comments from the brethren on IFB and the
King James Lists (IFfirstname.lastname@example.org). Shortly after our posting of these
answers, we received favorable comments and requests to print the answers
in booklet form. Well, with a bit more education on our word processing
program and our laser printer, we have done just that. Since we do not
believe in copyrighting our material, this booklet claims no copyright
rights, so anyone may duplicate it to further the cause of the King James
Bible. Our motto is "Freely received, freely given." We would hope that the
brethren would be honorable and not steal our name from the booklet's
contents. -- Herb Evans
30. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can
"correct" the English?
Answer: Which Hebrew and which Greek and which English?
Everything that "UNDERLIES" the KJB's English is not Hebrew and Greek, if
you have researched the translator's introduction. I don't see where the
KJB English needs correcting. Do you believe the Greek manuscripts can
correct other Greek Manuscripts? Do you believe the Greek can correct the
original Hebrew quotes, since they are different? Are you prepared for
some examples? Do you believe that something imperfect can correct
something else that is not perfect? Is that the first law of Stashu
Pendowski? — Evans
All scripture is . . . profitable for doctrine, for reproof,
for CORRECTION . . . -- 2 Tim. 3: 16
31. Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew
and Greek texts from which it was translated?
Answer: No! Do you know which Hebrew and Greek that they used?
I see no need to correct the "original" Hebrew and Greek. I could not begin
to even know how to do it. I believe the scriptures are supposed to correct
us -- not us the scriptures. Let the Greeks correct their own Greek. From
reports from our missionaries to Greece and the testimony of a Greek
national, the Greeks don't even know what the Greek means. On the other
hand, I see no valid reason to correct the KJB English. -- Evans
. . . for CORRECTION . . . That the man of God may be
perfect . . . -- 2 Tim. 3:16, 17
. . . ye have perverted the words of the living God . . . --
32. Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired
Answer: Yes, the King James Bible is inspired and infallible.
Its even ALIVE! Even Quick and powerful. It even discerns evil intentions.
Did Jesus say, "Blessed are they that hear the word of God and correct it."
or did He say something else (Luke 11:28). -- Evans
ALL SCRIPTURE is given by inspiration . . . -- 2 Tim. 3:16
33. Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim.
3:16] WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" - 1611, or any
of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644,1664,
1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
Answer: Yes, the KJB is "scripture." Yes, it is given by
inspiration of God as is all scripture that is scripture. When it was
originally given, it was destined to be preserved as inspired scripture,
whether copied or whether translated. The scriptures were not all written
at the same time nor preserved at the same time, however. It would be silly
to desire an uninspired authority, though we understand that some do.
Unfortunately, the scriptures were corrupted by copyists, scribes,
heretics, and printers over the years and even cut up and burned, but God
managed to recreate it. Of course, He allowed its spelling and punctuation
and grammar to be standardized. You might say that He inspired it, then
refined it in other languages, which is all part of the preservation
process, the mechanics of which we do not need to know but must believe did
take place as He has promised. -- Evans
But the word of the LORD endureth for ever . . . -- 1 Peter 1:25
34. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach
that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Answer: Shucks, I don't know that He did say that there or
anywhere. Unless the Hebrew has a Greek IOTA (jot) in it. If you know,
please tell me. Did you know that Hebrew is the language of Canaan? -- Evans
. . . his truth endureth to ALL generations . . . -- Ps. 100:5
. . . he that hath my word, let him speak my word FAITHFULLY .
. . -- Jer. 23:28
35. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in
the form of one seventeenth English translation?
Answer: The same place that the Bible teaches that He would
perfectly preserve the Greek and the Hebrew, which from all the talk from
bible correctors He has not. In fact, they can't even find a complete Bible
in Greek or Hebrew. Imagine that! In fact, where in the Bible, do you get
your calling to do what you are doing? Where in the Bible do you get your
theology or doctrine for the things that you believe about inspiration,
inerrancy, infallibility, and preservation? Where in the Bible do you get
your view of errors in all Bibles? Does the fact that Jesus said that the
scriptures cannot be broken mean anything at all to you? -- Evans
Every word of God is pure . . . --Proverbs 30:5
Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition .
. . -- Mark 7:13
36. Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were
Answer: No. Only bible correctors lost them. We believe in the
doctrine of preservation. We King James onlies believe that heaven and
earth may pass away but not God's word. We also believe that His word would
not depart from God's people, their seed, or their seed's seed, or their
seed's seed's seed. We also believe that His word will endure forever. And
we also believe that the scriptures cannot be broken. What do you
believe? -- Evans
. . . my words shall not pass away . . . -- Matt 24:35
He that . . . receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth
him: the word that I have spoken . . . -- John 12:48
37. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New
Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV
N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to
Answer: No, you are a liar for misquoting their claim. They
claimed to translate from the original "TONGUES." No, you are a liar for
misleading folks to think they claimed to have the original Autographs. --
. . . add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and
thou be found a liar . . . -- Pro. 30:6
38. Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
Answer: No! The original Greek Autographs were lost a long
time before that. Probably, 18 to 19 centuries ago. There never has been
found a one volume, (complete Bible) Greek manuscript in one piece intact.
The Greek language was not lost, just changed a bit. Now, God may have the
Original somewhere, but certainly you or your Bible correcting friends have
not found it nor know where it is at nor could you even tell it, if it was
right in front of you. How different it is for the Bible believer! He
possesses the scripture! -- Evans
. . . That from a child thou hast known the holy scriptures .
. . -- 2 Tim 3:15
39. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without
"the word of God"?
Answer: Protestant Reformation in what country? It sure seems
like it with all the Catholic errors those Protestants retained. If the
Reformation started in Germany (1520), they didn't have the word of God in
German yet (1534). Oh, but you were thinking of England, weren't you? To
answer your question, shortly after and during the Reformation very few
people had even a portion of the word of God. For all practical purposes
those, who had Tyndale's, The Great Bible, The Bishop's Bible, and the
Geneva Bible, had the word of God without intentional corruption, although
a one man translation and these unrefined translations were Bibles in
transition, in need of refining, much like the church in the Book of
Acts. -- Evans
. . . I will send a famine in the land, not a famine of bread . . .
but of hearing the words of the LORD . . . they shall run to and fro to
seek the word of the LORD, and shall not find it.
-- Amos 8:11,12
40. What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers,
was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known
and copies still exist].
Answer: None of them in England. The same as a New Tribes
translation into Swahili. First attempts are good expedients, when you have
nothing else but are in need of refinement. After the refinement process
is complete, you don't go backwards as the modern English translations have
done. Neither do you substitute an inferior Bible for that which is
perfect. -- Evans
. . . That they might understand the scriptures . . . -- Luke
. . . they have kept my word . . . -- John 17:6
41. If the KJV is "God's infallible and preserved word to the
English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word
of God" from 1525-1604?
Answer: They did not yet have "God's infallible and preserved
word to the English-speaking people" or there would have been no need for
the KJB. They did have the unrefined word of God, which awaited purifying,
and they did have the gospel to get saved. They had more of the word of God
than is available in our modern translations. They also did not have our
modern translations dumbing down their Christianity as we have today,
resulting in the falling away that precedes the tribulation period. -- Evans
. . . if they speak not according to this word, it is because there
is no light in them. -- Isa 8:20
42. Was Tyndale's , or Coverdale's , or Matthew's , or
the Great , or the Geneva  . . . English Bible absolutely
Answer: Nope! Same questioning - same reasoning 39, 40, and
41. What they had was a Bible in transition awaiting refinement. They all
essentially were Tyndale's Bible. Forgetting the things that are behind, we
are not concerned about the word of God for yesterday; we are concerned
about the word of God for today, the King James Bible! -- Evans
Of his own will begat he us with the word of truth . . . -- James 1:18
43. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant,
could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word
of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
Answer: Impossible scenario, but they could get saved by
reading an incorruptible portion of the word of God in an ordinary
commentary or a gospel tract. Still, a distinction must be made, regarding
the word of God as a whole as opposed to portions of the word of God.
Before the word of God as a whole was completed, it was still the word of
God in part. Nevertheless, it is the incorruptible Gospel that saves a man
from his sins. Whether preached or read! The Bible's statements regarding
itself are predicated on the fact that the scriptures are possessed. -- Evans
. . . the place of scripture which he read . . . -- Acts 8:35
44. If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and
Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
Answer: Whom do you know that believes the KJB can correct the
inspired originals? Whom do you know that knows what the inspired originals
look like? Who do you know that could tell if they had the Original
Autographs if they found them. How would they go about correcting the
original Autographs? And how would the Original Autographs go about
correcting the KJB? Nevertheless, no, the inspired autographs did not need
correction, but every one of your extant Greek manuscripts seem to need
correction, judging by the large amount of variants between them and the
large employment of textual critics. --Evans
. . . thy word is settled in heaven . . . -- Ps. 119:89
45. Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired
"scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came
not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were
moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus - "For the
King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God
translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
Answer: I would not restrict the moving of and by the Holy
Spirit to the writers or the translators, since men today are moved BY the
Spirit to do many things as in 1 Cor. 12:1-13 a dozen times (BY). Methinks
you are giving the word "move" an inordinate emphasis. (Job 2:3) -- Evans
In him we live, and MOVE and have our being . . . -- Acts 17:28
46. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture -
"whom ye" [Cambridge KJV's] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV's] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Answer: Some have said that the printers used an upside down
"h" instead of aright side up "h" or an upside down "y" instead of a right
side up"y" and that would fall into the category of a printer's error not a
translation error, but interestingly, the passage's meaning is not affected
by the different pronouns, as "he" would also be proper as a modifier of
"every man" as well as "ye." Still, others say that the error was injected
after the original KJB printing by a publisher. You must be desperate to
find errors in the King James Bible to zero in on either printer's errors
or publisher's errors. -- Evans
We HAVE also a more sure word of prophecy . . . -- 2 Pet. 1:19
47. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture -"sin"
[Cambridge KJV's] or "sins" [Oxford KJV's] at 2 Chronicles
Answer: Both readings are correct. One uses a plural, the
other uses a singular plural as was common in English at one time. Even one
of our Christian songs uses "all my sin." -- Evans
. . . one jot or tittle shall in no wise pass from the law .
. . -- Matt. 5:18
48. Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
Answer: Oxford, Cambridge, not sure about Nelson. You, if you
can get yourself a print shop and want to do it. -- Evans
The Lord gave the word: great was the company that published it. --
49. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to
changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of
changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles,
pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and
deletion of words - would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611,
1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
Answer: Again, in any attempt to copy or create or recreate a
document, there is a refinement process that must take place, unless DIRECT
inspiration (as opposed to preserved inspiration) is involved. How that
refinement process works is God's business, the same way as the mechanics
of inspiration and preservation are His business and not ours. You cited
several examples, which are called editions. They are not revisions.
Personally, I use the 1769, and that is the one that I am concerned about.
Yes, it is inerrant. I prefer the terms inspired and infallible in that
what constitutes an error is an endless debate, regarding English grammar
and spelling and punctuation. America and England are still not able to get
together on these things. Still, your general charges of hundreds of
"significant" changes are greatly exaggerated. Let us have some specifics,
unless you are merely a trifler. – Evans
I will show thee that which is noted in the scripture of truth . . . --
50. Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the
throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and
would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises the king as
"most dread Sovereign . . . Your Majesty's Royal Person . . ." - IF the
historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing
homosexual all of his life? [documentation - Antonia Fraser -- "King James
VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline
Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129,
197-198 || Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108,
111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson -- "King James
VI I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus
Answer: It doesn't bother me a bit, since Jesus cited the O.T.
to tell his opponents how men are "gods." Now, in case ye do not know it, a
god is a sovereign. Odd that you would use 20th century documentation to
prove such a charge of homosexuality to disparage the Authorized Bible. One
would think that you would document something juicy from the early 17th
century. There is plenty of counter point documentation which contain
James' own words against homosexuality, as well as a neat little story of
one of his enemies, who sought to disgrace James after his DEATH. Shall we
now talk about the Lesbians on the modern version committees? Or do we wish
to stop being garbage collectors?
Oh, before I forget, God does not "wait" on anyone. He makes
decisions in His time. It is we that are to wait on the Lord. And, yes, if
the fact that the heart of the King is in the hand of the LORD (if that is
inspired scripture), God engaged and used James to refine the word of
God. -- Evans
. . . the LORD . . . turned the heart of the king of Syria . . . -- Ezra 6:22
51. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked
on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating"
even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the
work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book
House/1979/pgs. 40, 69] Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing,"
in the KJV at James 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the
modern-English KJV reader?
Answer: I would not even contend that you are "led" by God in
your slimy garden of Eden type questions, none of which are predicated on
any doctrine found in the word of God. It is not my business to judge, who
is led by God and who is not. Was the adulterer and murderer, David, led
by God? Was the polygamous and idolatrous Solomon led by God? Draw your own
conclusions and then prove to me how you arrive at them. It would only give
those who pervert the word, in that context, the wrong impression. Frankly,
I think Sodomites is a much better word, even better than the "temple
prostitutes" of the modern translations. Nevertheless, I do not get my
views about the Bible from either secular or religious history as you do.
. . . I am against the prophets, saith the LORD, that steal
my words every one from his neighbor. .. . . I am against the prophets,
saith the LORD, that use their tongues, and say, He saith . . . -- Jer.
52. Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in
Answer: Obviously, you need to go back to Sunday school. It
does not say "dead" people woke up in the morning. It says "they arose"
early in the morning. They that arose found the "they" that had been
smitten, even the "they," who were all "dead corpses." Context man,
context. It is incorrect to quote the Bible as saying, "there is no God."
you must examine the context to find out that the "fool" says that. A
course in remedial Bible study may help you. -- Evans
. . . if a man love me, he will keep my words . . . He that
loveth me not keepeth not my sayings . . . -- John 14:24
53. Was "Baptist" John's last name according to Matthew 14:8 and Luke 7:20
in the KJV?
Answer: Yes, if Christ was Jesus' last name. 1 Cor. 3:11
(Iaisous HO Christos)
And yes, if Iscariot was Judas' (son of Simon) last name. Mark
14:10 (Judas HO Iskariotais)
Jesus Christ and Jesus the Christ. Judas Iscariot and Judas the
Iscariot. John Baptist and John the Baptist. Don't bother to check the NKJV
or the NIV, they do not partake in your nitpicking here. Would you like
some more names? -- Evans
. . . they speak a vision out of their own heart, and not out of the mouth
of the LORD.
-- Jer. 23:16
54. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the
modern-English KJV reader? - "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you,
our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened
in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my
children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New
International Version [NIV] - "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians,
and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection
from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange - I
speak as to my children - open wide your hearts also."
Answer: But why no objection nor appeal to the underlying
Greek? Why no fault finding with a paraphrase? Why different standards for
the NIV as opposed to the KJB? Why would you want an English translation
that corrects the Greek? I think the problem with your modern reader is
that the natural man receiveth not the things of God, neither can he know
them. Three guesses why?
Berry's Interlinear states it word for word: "Our mouth has
been opened to you, Corinthians, our heart has been expanded. Ye are not
straightened in us, but ye are straightened in your bowels; but the same
[as] recompense, (as to children I speak,) be expanded also ye." -- Evans
For who hath stood in the counsel of the LORD, and hath perceived and
heard his word? who hath marked his word and heard it? . . .I have not
spoken to them, yet they prophesied.
-- Jer. 23:18, 21
55. Does the singular "oath's," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14:9 and
Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural
("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
Answer: I can only find one oath in the records, which you
cite. And Matthew 14:7 says, Whereupon he promised with an oath [singular
in Greek and English NKJV and NIV - (methhorkou)]. Would you be so kind to
show me the other oaths he made to her? Isn't this a little wild after your
NIV departure from the Greek in number 54? -- Evans
Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither
shall ye diminish ought from it . . . -- Deut. 4:2
56. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10
in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke
4:8? [Remember - you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a
Answer: Who needs to go to the Greek, when you have a
Webster's 1828 handy? The word is a Saxon word signifying worth-ship; the
state of worth and worthiness. The connotation that you want to contradict
the King James Bible with is not the 1st or 2nd or even the 3rd Webster
1828 choice. Note under the noun, "worship":
1. Excellence of character; dignity; worth; worthiness
2. A title of honor, used in addresses to certain magistrates and others
of respectable character. My father desires your worship's company. - Shakes.
3. A term of ironical respect. -- Evans
How long shall this be in the heart of the prophets that
prophecy lies? yea, they are prophets of the deceit of their own heart . .
. -- Jer. 23:26
57. Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and
1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again - you may not go the Greek for any "light"
if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Answer: What if I already know that "itself" is the Greek
"AUTO" and is neuter. Like auto-matic is selfo-matic. I am beginning to
think that you are afraid of the Greek. Now, let me see if I understand
this. You have made a rule that the Holy Spirit cannot be called an "it" or
"itself" and you want everyone to obey your theological rule. If that is
correct, what is the basis for your rule? Do you also have a rule for MAN
being called an "it" or "itself," for the KJB and both the NKJB and NIV all
use the word "itself" for the creature (creation in the NIV and NKJV). The
KJB says, “Because the creature ITSELF also shall be delivered . .
. (Romans 8:20). When I knock on your door, and you ask, Who is IT? I
might reply, "IT is I.” Merely a nuance of our language. The NIV and NKJV
with the KJB call Jesus an IT in Rev. 12:4. The dragon stood in front of
the woman who was about to give birth, so that he may to devour her child
the moment IT was born. You might note that the in Matthew 14:26, the NKJV
and NIV say, about the disciples quote, "IT is a GHOST " (SPIRIT in the
KJB). What does Jesus say, "IT is I" (verse 27). What do the disciples say,
"If IT is you" (verse 28). So Jesus is an IT! Methinks you should make some
more rules to cover these irreverent, inconsistent situations.
Yawn! -- Evans
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain
deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and
not after Christ. -- Col. 2:8
58. Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day"
here in Greek]
Answer: I don't think it supports a Friday crucifixion, but tell me, what
kind of a Sabbath was it? A Sabbath year? A Sabbath month? A Sabbath week
maybe. A Sabbath hour? A Sabbath moment? Well, I am out of choices. Do you
have any others choices, so that I may decide? What commandment do you
think this Sabbath was referring to in Luke 23:56? -- Evans
. . . strive not about words to no profit, but to the
subverting of the hearers . . . -- 2 Tim. 2:14
59. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to
Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
Answer: Well, bless your heart, you did not know that "meat"
in the Bible meant"food" and flesh meant "meat?" And you did not know that
sitting at a table at a wedding feast (NKJV) was for the purpose of eating.
Come on, your putting me on? Or are you? -- Evans
But foolish and unlearned questions avoid, knowing that
they do gender strifes. -- 2 Tim. 2:23
60. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans
8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV's "saved by
hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 - see more
Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his many others' views in
the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
Answer: Of course he was. He was also a cigar smoking theater
attender. Still, whether a Bible Corrector or no, Spurgeon just corrected
Tyndale's, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, and the Bishop's Bible, and
the King James Bible. Perhaps, he was just mistaken? ELPIDI, the dat. sing.
fem. is used a number of times in the N.T. and is preceded by an EK, an EN,
or an EP, when "in hope" is meant. Perhaps you should check this out in
Acts 2:26, Rom 4:18, Rom 5:2, Rom 8:20, Rom 12:2, Rom 15:13, 1 Cor 9:10
(twice), Eph 4:4, Titus 1:2. These prepositions are curiously absent from
Rom. 8:24. Are you sure that this was not merely a theological assumption?
Why don't you go back and rub your Spurgeon statue 3 times and make a
wish? -- Evans
Put not your trust in princes, nor in the son of man, in whom
there is no help.-- Ps. 146:3
61. Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct
rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for
saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"?
[Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an
"Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit
a 'perfect' translation - the semantic area of words differs between
languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A 'perfect'
translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have
no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
Answer; Well, we have already went over this AGAPAO/PHILEO
thing, but who is Norman Pickering? A pope that you parrot and adore? Are
you a Pickeringite? J. Frank Norris was wrong about a lot of things,
namely, cussing out his choir (ref. Al Janney). He made a mistake in
shooting a man to death, I suppose he could have made other mistakes. One
mistake that he may have made here is listening to Enzminger, who liked the
RV/ASV. According to your NKJV and NIV, he was wrong about Acts 26:20.
Also, according to Tyndale, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop's
Bible, The RV/ASV Bible, and the RSV Bible, he was wrong. Now, don't you
think he was a bit out of his league, when he said that? Still, when Norris
was thinking right, he did not allow anything but the KJB to be taught at
the Norris Bible institute. I like their statement, don't you?
"We believe that God's Word is preserved for us today in the
Authorized King James Version (1611), and that it is the God-honored text
of the Reformation. We believe that inspiration without preservation would
be meaningless. We reject all other translations and paraphrases of the
Word of God and subscribe to and use only the KJV (1611 or its equivalent
in any language) in all of our activities. "Obviously, Norris was pushing
to the limits the Greek word "KAI," which can mean "and" or an "explanatory
and" or in other words an "even." It is so used that way in scripture, but
no one seems to agree with Norris on this here in this passage but you.
What is rather interesting though, is that if "KAI" was an
"even" in your other passage, John 3:5, It would say born of water even of
Spirit, the water symbolic of the Spirit, something that arch Bible
Corrector Bob Ross believes is the case here, which would make the KJB more
correct than its rivals. Isn't this fun? –Evans
. . . why are ye subject to . . . the commandments and
doctrines of men? -- Col. 2:20-22
62. Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 - "No one,
so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is
absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the
Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and
that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the
Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
Answer: You keep using the word "lying," which means
intentional false hoods. Something that is wrong or untrue is not
necessarily a lie. He was mistaken, of course, but in the Bible sense, he
was a liar as all men are liars. President John Adams can be documented as
having a problem with Bible believing Christians believing the KJB as
absolute. If you post an answer to this critique of your questions with
your e-mail address, I will post you some of it. Others have documented
those, who believed their Bible was infallible in the previous generation.
The Orthodox Creed of 1679 was written by a group of General
Baptists in England, with a desire to emphasize doctrines that were held in
common by all Bible-believing Christians. The Following is what they
believed about the Bible:
"And by the Holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books
of the Old and New Testament, as they are now translated into our English
mothers, of which there hath never been any doubt of their verity and
authority in the protestant churches of Christ to this day. All which are
given by the inspiration of God, to be the rule of faith and life." Thank
you Jesus! Praise de Lawd. Hallelujah! -- Evans
If a man teach otherwise and consent not to wholesome words,
even the words of our LORD Jesus Christ . . . He is proud, knowing nothing,
but doting about QUESTIONS and STRIFES OF WORDS . . . Perverse disputings
of men of CORRUPT minds, and destitute of truth . . . -- 1 Tim. 6:3-5
. . . teaching for doctrines the commandments of men . .
. -- Matt. 15:9
63. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV,"
thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch,
June 1989, page 6]
Answer: What is the complete quote? What do you think after
playing in the sandbox with these Garden of Eden questions? Certainly, his
ideas are no worse than your canonizing of unknown Hebrew and Greek of
uncertain origin, invisible and inaccessible. Hebrew to the Hebrews and
Greek to the Greeks and English to the English, and we will all be
fine. -- Evans
. . . continue thou in the things which thou hast learned and
hast been assured of, knowing of who thou hast learned them . . . -- 2
64. Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to
English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above] God
is supernatural, is He not? Did He have something to do with it or nothing
to do with it? Was God in any of it or completely divorced from it?
Answer: We have already talked about God moving people, even
the lost, to do things. Do you know for sure, when God moves or leads
anyone to do anything? Has God led the modern translators supernaturally in
correcting the KJB? Has He even led them influentially to correct the KJB?
What is your proof or basis for saying so? Has God led you supernaturally
to generate these 64 questions? No? If not, please shut up! -- Evans
Ever learning, and never able to come to a knowledge of the truth. -- 2