perfect bible before KJB
I will destroy the wisdom of the wise 1 Corinthians 1:19
The one argument the “No Bible is inerrant” crowd continually throws in our face as being unanswerable is this: “Where was the perfect and inerrant Bible before 1611?”
Here are some direct quotes from a seminarian who thinks hermes mens duffle replica
this question completely destroys our position. He writes: “I must ask you this in return, where was the Word of God prior to the KJV being written? This is where your position blows up at. You MUST claim that God didn’t write an infallible Bible until 1611 if you hold to all of this. Can you name where the “complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God existed before the KJV was translated? The answer needs to stay consistent with your position. Don’t say they were found here or there. You MUST, to be consistent, say a specific Bible in a specific language that the “complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% true wordS of God” were located.”
Keep in mind that these King James Bible critics do not believe that there EVER existed a perfect and infallible Bible in ANY language (including “the” Hebrew and Greek) and they certainly do not believe there exists one NOW. The force of their argument is that since there was no perfect and infallible Bible before the King James Bible, then the King James Bible itself cannot be the perfect words of God anymore than their favorite, multiple choice and contradictory bible versions.
They don’t defend any of their modern versions like the RSV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NET, NKJV or Holman Standard as being the 100% true words of God in contrast to the other versions. Most of them don?t claim to have an infallible Bible but they take offense at our claim that we do.
There are only Four options open to them.
1. Only the originals were inspired and infallible. It should be pointed out that the originals never did form a 66 book Bible and they have not seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives.
At one Bible club I belong to there was one guy who objected to my King James Bible only position saying that he was against any form of “onlyism” because it was unbiblical and elitist. I then pointed out to him that if he bothered to check almost any Baptist or other Christian site that addressed the issue of their belief about “the Bible” they almost always say: “We believe that ONLY the originals are (were) inspired and inerrant; no translation is inerrant.” This most certainly is itself a form of “onlyism” and it is far worse than believing that the King James Bible is the only pure and perfect Book of the LORD.
The “originals only” position leaves us without a perfect and inerrant Bible NOW, and it is a profession of faith in something that THEY KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?!? (Note: See comments at end of this article regarding a Facebook interchange with an “originals” onlyist)
2. All reliable bible versions (NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV, Holman, KJV, Spanish, German etc.) are the inspired and infallible words of God.
How someone with the discernment of a poached egg can say such a thing is beyond me, but I do run into this type of nonsense. I call this intellectual suicide the “Fruit Loops Logic”. In order to hold to view 2 they need to give new meanings to old words.
“Infallible” no longer means “without errors”; it now must mean something like “ballpark close enough to be divinely useful” or something like that.
These modern versions differ among themselves by omitting or adding literally THOUSANDS of words from the New Testament alone, and the modern versions change the meanings of hundreds of verses and often reject the Hebrew readings, and not even in the same places as the others. Not one of them agrees textually with any other in scores if not thousands of places.
For a person to affirm that all these contradictory and textually very different “bibles” are all the infallible words of God, they end up portraying a god who is apparently suffering from Alzheimer’s disease; he can’t remember what he said, how he said it, or if he even said it at all.
Try arguing that they are all “the inspired and 100% true words of God” before a court of law or even a high school debating team and you will be laughed out of the room.
To prove the utter absurdity of making such a claim that all versions like the NASB, KJV, NIV, ESV etc. are the perfect and infallible words of God, just take a look at this study I have put together showing in clear black and white how all these versions differ radically from each other in numbers and names alone.
Then get back to us and tell us once again with a straight face that all these different versions are the infallible words of God.
3. “The words of God are preserved in the extant or remaining 5000 plus Greek manuscripts that we have today.”
This is a very common explanation that ends up meaning absolutely nothing. Men who generally hold this type of position are what I call Bible Agnostics like James White, Doug Kutilek, Rick Joyner, Rick Norris, James Price, Daniel Wallace and company.
Their position is on the same level as saying “God’s words are preserved in Webster’s Unabridged Dictionary. They are all out of order and mixed up among thousands of other words that are not God’s true words, but, Hey, they’re in there someplace.”
The simple fact is that among these thousands of remaining (not counting of course all the thousands of manuscripts that have disappeared and turned to dust over the centuries) manuscript scraps, pieces, partial books and sections of the New Testament (none of which is an entire New Testament) there are literally thousands upon thousands of very real and serious variant readings, and nobody is sure which ones are God’s words and which ones are not.
The modern bible versions are based on the constantly changing theory called the “science” of textual criticism. They have no fixed and settled text and what they do have can and does change at the slightest whim, and no two modern scholars are agreed on what the New Testament should look like.
For some concrete examples of what this so called “science” of Textual Criticism looks like and how it really works, check out these examples here:.