Roger Fulk October 7, 2023 King James Bible King James Only 0
Will Kinney – King James Bible Debate
THE “OLD FASHIONED LANGUAGE” OF THE KING JAMES BIBLE
“Archaic and Inerrant” beats “Modernized and Wrong” Any Day of the Week.You may prefer any modern English bible version because you think it is easy to understand, but if it corrupts and teaches false doctrines and not even you or the people who put it out believe it is the inerrant words of God (and they don’t) then what good is it?
One of the main reasons the modern version promoters tell us we need to get rid of the King James Bible and buy one of the multiple choice modern versions is because they say that the old King James Bible is too hard to understand and it uses “archaic” words. They tell us that people don’t talk like that today (with all those “thee”s and “ye”s) and that we need something easy to understand.First of all, let me point out what none of these people are telling you. You need to know where they are coming from and where they want to take you. It is a proven fact that not one of them actually believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, inspired and infallible words of God.Just ask them. I have been discussing and debating the King James Bible issue for years now, and I have never run into a single modern version user who honestly believes that his particular version IS the infallible words of God and that when other versions differ from his in either text or meaning, then the others are wrong and his is right. NOT ONE.
When you ask them to SHOW you a copy of this “infallible Bible” they seem to want you to think they actually believe in, most of these people then begin to backtrack and come out with something like “Well, only the original Hebrew and Greek are inspired.”What they utterly fail to notice is the obvious FACT that there IS NO “the original Hebrew and Greek” in existence. They have never seen a single word of these “original autographs” and have no way of knowing if their particular flavor of the month bible version (which are always changing with each new edition to come down the pike) matches their unseen, unknown and unreadable “the originals” or not. They are bluffing and they are professing a faith in something that they KNOW does not even exist!
Furthermore, I always find it amusing and highly ironic that these same people (Bible agnostics – they don’t know for sure what God may or may not have said) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible end up referring us to “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek.It should be pointed out that there is no such thing as “the” Hebrew and much less anything called “the” Greek. There are literally THOUSANDS of variant readings in both the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and numerous very different printed Greek editions are out there in Bible Babblelonia Land today.I also find it highly ironic that these same people who complain about the “hard to understand and archaic language” of the King James Bible, now want us to learn two very difficult archaic languages that are no longer spoken today and that are FAR more difficult than anything you will find in the English text of the King James Bible.Biblical Hebrew and Greek are very different from modern Hebrew and Greek and no native speaker talks that way. Don’t these people ever stop to think through their position and what they are actually saying?Where do these modern Version promoters want to take us? The simple truth is they want us to become bible agnostics and unbelievers in the infallibility of the Bible – ANY bible in ANY language – just like they are.The only Christians I have run into over the years who REALLY believe in an infallible Bible are the King James Bible believers. We may not always agree on what the Biblical texts MEAN, but we all DO agree on what the Bible text SAYS.Those in the Bible Babble Buffet Camp don’t always agree on what their varying texts mean either, and they certainly do not agree on what their contradictory and ever changing texts SAY.USA Today came out with a very interesting article in 2011 that found that people who actually READ the Bible, are far more likely to be King James Bible readers. It’s called Bible Readers Prefer King James Version. You can see the article here.http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/news/religion/2011-04-21-king-james-bible.htmHere is one quote from this USA Today article – “Although there are two dozen English-language Bibles in many contemporary translations, THE KING JAMES VERSION REIGNS EVEN MORE SUPREME AMONG THOS WHO ACTUALLY READ THEIR BIBLES: 82% of those who read the Good Book at least once a month rely on the translation that first brought the Scripture to the English-speaking masses worldwide.”It is a proven fact that the majority of present day professing Christians no longer believe that “The Bible” is the infallible words of God. Among the clergy and seminary students the percentage is in the 90’s. See what the polls and professors are saying here – “The Bible is NOT the infallible words of God.” –http://brandplucked.com/thebiblenotinspired.htmIF a Christian REALLY believes the Bible is the infallible words of God, then the “old fashioned language” is not an issue at all. Sure, the King James Bible has some words that are older or have different meanings than we may be familiar with.But people are learning new vocabulary or new meanings to English words all the time in any field of study, be it sports, biology, the sciences, mathematics, medicine or just about anything imaginable. If you are interested in something, you learn the meaning of the words that are found in this field of interest. Even when you start using the computer we have to learn some new words or different meanings to words we already knew – Words like “mouse”, IPad, “Kindle”, Office, Word, “paste”.
If interested, see the whole article here with many concrete examples of the corruptions found in the modern “easy to understand” versions.
http://brandplucked.com/archaickjb.htm
“He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8
“But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38.
BRANDPLUCKED.COMAnother King James Bible Believer
Will KinneyKing James Bible Debate
· The Book of the Judges – Some examples of the Bible Babel Buffet.These are just a few examples taken from the book of Judges that show how not all bible versions say the same things but with different words. It is my contention that the King James Bible is always correct. It is the preserved, inerrant word of God and all other modern English versions are inferior and often wrong.Not all Bible versions are as ridiculous as this following example, but you have to admit the New English Bible of 1970 goes beyond the bounds of the usual blunders found in most inferior versions of God’s word. (For several examples of bonehead blunders in such versions as the NASB, NIV, NKJV, Holman Standard see my article here:http://brandplucked.com/blundernasnkjnivhol.htmJudges 1:14 KJB – “…and she lighted from off her ass; and Caleb said unto her, What wilt thou?”In Judges 1:14 all versions I have consulted say basically the same thing, except the NEB – New English Bible of 1970. In the King James Bible we read of Achsah, the daughter of Caleb, who had just been given in marriage to Othniel. “And it came to pass, when she came to him (her new husband) that she moved him to ask of her father a field: and SHE LIGHTED FROM OFF HER ASS; and Caleb said unto her, WHAT WILT THOU?”However only the NEB 1980 (New English Bible) says: “When she came to him, he incited her to ask her father for a piece of land. As she sat on the ass, SHE BROKE WIND, and Caleb said, ‘WHAT DID YOU MEAN BY THAT?”It’s hard to make stuff like this up, but when somebody tells you that all bibles say essentially the same things, they really haven’t studied the issue very much.However, thankfully, the Revision of the NEB was done in 1989 and the Revised English Bible now says: “She dismounted from her donkey, and Caleb asked her, ‘What do you want?'”Judges 3:22 – “and THE DIRT came out”King James Bible – “And the haft also went in after the blade; and the fat closed upon the blade, so that he could not draw the dagger out of his belly; and THE DIRT CAME OUT.”The word “dirt” is a euphemistic term which means his excrement. It is not even an archaic word. Webster’s 1999 dictionary defines dirt as “any foul or filthy substance, as mud, grime or excrement.”The New Oxford American Dictionary gives one of the definitions of “the dirt” as “informal – excrement: a lawn covered in dog dirt.”The first definition given for dirt in Webster’s Collegiate dictionary 1967 here on my desk is 1. excrement.Not only does the KJB tell us that Ehud stuck the dagger into the belly of the very fat king Eglon and that “the dirt came out” but so also do Wycliffe 1395, the Great Bible 1540 – “but the dyrt came out.”, Matthew’s bible 1549 – “And the dyrt came out.”, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Webster’s translation 1833, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Smith Bible 1876, The Revised English Bible 1877, Darby’s translation 1890, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company translation – “and THE DIRT came out”, the RSV “and THE DIRT came out”, NRSV 1989, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569, Reina Valera 1995 – “y salió el estiércol”, La Biblia de las Américas 1997 – “y se le salieron los excrementos.”, Italian Diodati 1649 – “e lo sterco uscì fuori.”, the Amplified Bible 1987- “Ehud did not draw the sword out of his belly, and THE DIRT came out.”, the Third Millennium Bible 1998 – and THE DIRT came out.”, The Biblos Interlinear Bible 2011, and the Modern Greek Bible – “και εξηλθε κοπρος.” = “and went out manure”.The New Jewish Version 1985 – “and THE FILTH came out.”The Jubilee Bible 2010 = “and the EXCREMENT came out.”The ESV 2001-2011 says: “and THE DUNG came out.”The Judaica Press Tanach 2004 – “he did not draw the sword out of his belly; and THE EXCREMENT came out.”The Douay-Rheims 1610 says: “THE EXCREMENTS of the belly came out.”The Voice 2012 – “and the contents of Eglon’s intestines spilled out.”New Living Translation 2013 – “and the king’s bowels emptied.”Adam Clarke comments: “The original, parshedonah, occurs only here, and is supposed to be compounded of peresh, dung, and shadah, to shed, and may be very well applied to his having an evacuation in the natural way through fright and anguish.”David Guzik’s Commentary notes: ” Without being coarse, we can see how real and true-to-life the Bible is; in the Bible (unlike most moves and television programs) people go to the bathroom.”John Gill comments: “and the dirt came out -the margin of our Bibles is, “it came out at the fundament”; that is, the dagger did, the thrust being so strong and vehement; but that is not so likely, the dagger being so short, and Eglon a very fat man. The Targum is “his food went out” which was in his bowels; but as the wound was closed up through fat, and the dagger stuck fast in it, it could not come out that way: rather therefore this is to be understood of his excrements, and of their coming out at the usual place, it being common for persons that die a violent death, and indeed others, to purge upon it.”Matthew Pooles’ English Annotations – “His excrements came forth, not at the wound, which closed up, as is usual when persons die either a natural or violent death.”The BIBLE BABBLE BUFFET VERSIONSHowever many other versions give us totally different meanings for this verse, and don’t even agree with each other.The NKJV 1982 says: “and HIS ENTRAILS came out.”New Living Translation – “So Ehud did not pull out the dagger, and the king’s bowels emptied.” (Good paraphrase)Darby 1890 – “for he did not draw the sword out of his belly, and IT came out between the legs.”Good News Translation 1992 – “Ehud did not pull it out of the king’s belly, and IT STUCK OUT BEHIND, BETWEEN HIS LEGS. “ (Ouch!)Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901 – “for he drew not the sword out of his belly; and IT came out behind.”The NASB 1995 and Legacy Standard 2021 have: “and THE REFUSE came out.” (More than a little vague. What exactly is “refuse”, empty soup cans and sandwich bags?)Common English Bible 2011 – “the fat closed over the blade, and HIS GUTS SPILLED OUT.” Footnote- Hebrew uncertainRotherham’s Emphasized bible of 1902 gives us a totally different meaning with: “for he withdrew not the sword out of his body, – and HE CAME OUT INTO THE ANTE-CHAMBER.”NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions read – “Even the handle sank in after the blade, WHICH CAME OUT HIS BACK.”BUT the NIV 2011 now reads – “Even the handle sank in after the blade, AND HIS BOWELS DISCHARGED.”So, were the two previous the NIV editions wrong and this late$t one finally got it right?The Message 2002 – “The fat closed in over it so he couldn’t pull IT out.”Names of God Bible 2011 – “The BLADE STUCK OUT IN BACK.” Footnote “Hebrew meaning uncertain.”International Standard Version – “the sword point exited from Eglon’s entrails.”Holman Standard – “And Eglon’s INSIDES came out.Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta says “…the fat closed upon the blade, because he did not draw the sword out of his belly; AND HE WENT OUT HASTILY.”The 1961 Bible in Basic English actually reads this way – “he did not take the sword out of his stomach. And he went out into the …”That’s how it really reads. It just ends with three dots… “and he went out into the…” That’s it!Young’s – “that he hath not drawn the sword out of his belly, AND IT GOETH OUT AT THE FUNDAMENT.” (Say What?!)Dan Wallace and Company’s NET version reads – “for EHUD did not pull the sword out of his belly.”This made up version by Daniel Wallace and Friends adds the word “Ehud”, and gives a meaning different from all the other versions. The “scholars” who put together this NET thing just omit the phrase altogether. Wait till you see what they did with Judges 5:8!The Catholic ConnectionThe Catholic versions exhibit their usual confusion and constant change. The earlier Douay-Rheims 1610 and the 1950 Douay read – “So that he did not draw out the dagger, but left it in the body as he had struck it in: and forthwith, BY THE SECRET PARTS OF NATURE, THE EXCREMENTS OF THE BELLY CAME OUT.”But the 1968 Jerusalem bible says: “…and the fat closed over the blade, for Ehud left the dagger in his belly; THEN HE WENT OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW.”Then the 1970 St. Joseph NAB has – “…and the fat closed over the blade BECAUSE HE DID NOT WITHDRAW THE DAGGER FROM HIS BELLY.”This is also how the New Jerusalem bible 1985 reads and then tells us in a footnote that this reading comes from the Greek Septuagint, but that the Hebrew adds other words that seem to be a “euphemism – to relieve nature”.And now in 2009, once again a Catholic translator has changed his latest version, the Catholic Public Domain Version (The Sacred Scriptures) and it now reads – “Instead, he left it in the body just as he had struck with it. And immediately, BY THE PRIVATE PARTS OF NATURE, THE FILTH OF THE BOWELS WENT OUT.”So did THE DIRT (the EXCREMENT) come out of the very fat king Eglon (KJB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV 2011 and others), or was it his ENTRAILS AND INTESTINES (NKJV, Holman), or was it THE DAGGER ITSELF that came out (NIV 1978, 1984 editions, RV, ASV), or was it Ehud who “went out INTO THE ANTE-CHAMBER”, or “OUT THROUGH THE WINDOW”, or was it as Young translated “it goeth OUT AT THE FUNDAMENT”?There is a simple fact recorded in the Scriptures here that excludes the idea found in the NKJV and Holman versions of it being his entrails or his insides. The verse tells us that the fat closed upon both the blade and the haft. There was no open wound through which his intestines could pour out of his body. His belly was sealed shut.It is also noted that Eglon was a very fat man, so it is highly unlikely that the dagger itself came out the other side of his body as the previous NIVs and ASV have it. The only thing the phrase “and the dirt came out” can logically refer to is the fact often observed in those who die in a violent manner is that the king defecated from shock.John Gill and other commentators take this view and support the reading found in the King James Bible.The King James Bible is correct and the NKJV, Holman, NET, NIVs 1978 and 1984 editions and many others are simply wrong.
To see more examples like this from the book of Judges, go here –
http://brandplucked.com/bookofjudges.htm
God bless.BRANDPLUCKED.COMAnother King James Bible Believer
https://www.collegeoftheopenbible.com/divorce.html Christians and Divorce - What God Says? Many Christians are continually having ma...