do not reject the Bible because it contradicts itself,
HAPPENS WHEN YOU ARE NOT
By Will Kinney
One of the first things that must occur for someone to no longer believe in a complete, infallible, inspired Bible is to somehow not believe or explain away the following verses that the Holy Bible says about itself.
THE PRESERVED WORD OF GOD
Even though the onslaught of Bible corruption has intensified in these last days, God has promised that He will preserve His word pure for ever.
The Bible cannot be clearer concerning it's preservation:
Instead of believing God has preserved His infallible words in any single Book, the Bible of the Month Club member, who promotes a multitude of conflicting versions all based on different texts and changing the meanings of hundreds of verses, believes the true words of God are found "somewhere out there" in all the manuscripts, except where these have been corrupted by scribal errors. He thinks it is up to the scholars to try to restore what God apparently has lost, only his favorite group of scholars don't seem to be able to agree even among themselves as to which texts are correct nor how to translate them. Every man ends us "doing that which is right in his own eyes", and he no longer has any text or Bible he believes to be the infallible, inspired words of God.
I have been involved in the Bible version debate for several years now, and have had ample opportunity to find out what those who are not King James Bible only believers think and where they stand on this issue. I know God can and does use other versions to bring people to faith in Christ as their Saviour. I do not deny this; but that does not make them the repository of His complete and perfect words.
God never promised to give every nation a Bible, let alone a perfect Bible - see Psalms 147:19-20 for this biblical principle. "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation: and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD." But God did promise to preserve His words and the evidence that He has done so perfectly only in the Authorized King James Bible is overwhelming.
Most of the popular modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV all are based on a very different Greek text than the time tested and God honoured King James Bible. See my article on the so called "oldest and best manuscripts" that form the basis of most modern translations.
See also the article dealing with the most disputed readings between the KJB and the modern versions in the Old Latin Version, which shows these readings were found in this ancient version 200 years before they were omitted by Sinaiticus and Vaticanus.
The NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV also depart many times, and not always in the same places, from the Hebrew texts. See my two articles showing this at:
It is my contention that once a person no longer believes the King James Bible is the inerrant word of God, they become their own authority and they end up not believing any text or any Bible in any language is the infallible word of God.
The following quotes come from people who do not believe the KJB is the only true word of God in the English language. They have embraced the multitude of modern versions and this is how their thinking has been affected as a direct result.
A man who calls himself Robycop says the following: "the books of Kings & Chronicles were written by MEN, under the auspices of the Holy Spirit,hence,the differences among those books. You and I could observe a swimming pool and each make somewhat different estimates of how much water it holds-and it's entirely possible that the different writers did exactly that, or they got their info secondhand from another observer. You cannot truthfully attribute every word in those books to the Holy Spirit, as it's apparent that they differ among themselves."
Robycop: "But who are we to assume that the Holy Spirit said to these writers,"write down every word I say",and then dictated the text to these men. I believe it was more like,"Write down everything you have observed"-if He communicated directly with these men at all-and then He preserved these writings from then till now. For that reason,I believe all the differing accounts as presented in our English Bible translations."
Robycop: "The texts used by the translators of some versions didn't include words found in other texts used by other translators. Until the questions of textual authenticity or non-validity are answered, we have no authority to declare one correct to the exclusion of any other."
Another Christian called gconan says: "You know I do believe that we do have God's inspired, infallible Word! But we need several Bibles to be 100% correct."
At another Christian club I asked these questions, and Matt responded in the following way.
It is even more ironic, that though Matt is very vague about where God's words are found and seems to think we can only "get a drift of most of the message they were trying to convey" (how pathetic), but Matt seems blissfully unaware that the NKJV is not based on the Nestle Greek text, where he says "we can see most of it". The NKJV contains some 5000 more words and several whole verses not found in the Nestle text.
I frequently ask this question. "Do you personally believe that any text or any translation is the inerrant, inspired, complete words of God that you would not "correct" in any way?
Brother Scott, over at the Baptist Board answers: "I think that we are still on a quest to find not only the original words that were written in the autographs, but as our language and scholarship changes, so does our ability to effectively translate those manuscripts."
When I asked this same question, a Christian who calls himself Tinytim answers with uncharacteristic honesty: "No one has a complete infallible bible, God seen fit to destroy the originals. If you have a problem with that talk to Him. We do have reliable english translations that give us God's message to humankind, but to say that they are inspired, infallible, or inerrant is a lie. They are merely a translation. God preserved his words in the varying manuscripts. That's why I carry a parallel Bible. There is so much pride in the KJVO beliefs that it is sinful."
Another Christian who calles himself Archangel responds in this way: "I'd characterize the differences between our approaches more like this: you begin with a pre-determined notion about what God *must* have done; I look at the facts to determine what God has *actually* done. I hold that every believer has "soul liberty" in the matter of textual and translational differences and is responsible before God for his textual and translational choices concerning the Biblical text just as he is responsible before God for his interpretation of the Biblical text... I believe that God has given His word to the English-speaking people in many different translations both before and after 1611."
OK, let's check out the practical outworkings of Archangel's ideas. He goes on to post:
"The KJV has inferior translations in some places. Example: Mk. 1:10, where it renders the forceful Greek participle scizomenous -- meaning "torn open" or some similar equivalent -- as "opened," thus completely missing the force of the verb and its connection with Mk. 15:38. Since the translation of the KJV is capable of being improved here in Mk. 1:10, it is not "perfect."
To which I answered: "Well Archy, first of all the KJB is not alone in translating this word skizo as "opened" or "opening", for the Tyndale, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NKJV 1979 edition, Webster's, Weymouth, New Century Version, KJV 21, Third Millenium Bible, and the ESV do so as well.
Secondly, we see that this is the force of the word here in Mark, because in the other two accounts found in Matthew and Luke, the Holy Ghost used the word anoigo (to open) instead of skizo as here. Thus demonstrating the force of the word in this context." It seems others equally as qualified would disagree with Archangel's personal opinion.
Archangel also mentioned a second "shortcoming" of the KJB. He said: "The KJV lacks material which is clearly present in the original language texts. Example: Psalm 37 in Hebrew is an acrostic psalm (i.e., the first section begins with the first letter of the Hebrew alphabet, the second section begins with the second letter of the Hebrew alphabet, and so on). This acrostic feature is not preserved in the KJV even though the translators demonstrated elsewhere that they knew how to do it (see the acrostic Psalm 119). Since the KJV is capable of being improved by structuring Psa. 37 in such a way as to preserve its acrostic feature, it is not "perfect."
I then answered Archangel in this manner: "It should be noted that not only does the KJB not render Psalm 37 as an acrostic but neither do the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, NEB, nor the NRSV." Archangel should just go ahead and write his own bible version. That is the only way he will be satisfied.
At the Baptist Board, another professing Christian named Daniel says: "Now look, I could not continue (being a KJV onylist) when I saw each of these ERRORS that CANNOT BE EXPLAINED AWAY, I walked away from the KJV. Remember, I was KJVO. It took the truth to set me free."
Then Daniel posts the following examples of "errors that cannot be explained away".
Once again, Daniel should learn a bit more before criticizing the KJB. The fact is the angel announcing the birth of the Saviour shows his amazement at what is happening - God is becoming a baby, and the Greek itself puts the expression in the neuter gender, (to gennwmenon) not in the masculine. It literally reads "that holy thing being born", and so do Tyndale 1525, Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley's 1755 translation, Young's "literal", Darby, the Diodati, Lamsa, Spanish Reina Valera, Webster's 1833 translation, and the American Standard Version.
If Daniel would consult the NASB 1960 edition which reads: "that holy offspring", but in later editions was changed to "that holy child", he would see a footnote that says: "literally - that holy thing". Other places where a neuter gender is used to refer to Christ are Matthew 1:20, and 1 John 1:1.
Those versions like the RSV, ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, that say "the holy CHILD" have actually added something to the English text that does not exist in any Greek manuscript. Even the NIV retains the neuter expression here by saying "the holy one", instead of "child".
Dr. Bob, one of the moderators of Baptist Board says: "One must examine the principles of choice of Greek readings in the new combined Greek text and then evaluate objectively and see which text is truly reflective of the "original". Personally, I opt to use the 1550 Stephens Greek text , then compare each verse to the modern eclectic text." This same Dr. Bob is the one who also said all the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in places, and he changes them when he thinks some "scribal error" has crept into the Hebrew readings. Dr. Bob has no inspired, complete, infallible Bible anywhere on this earth. He is his own final authority as to which texts to adopt and how to render them, and of course, his own personal mystical bible version is different from that of everybody else's.
The NKJV itself promotes this type of thinking where every man does that which is right in his own eyes. On page 1235 of the 1982 edition regarding the hundreds of variant readings listed in the footnotes, the NKJV editors say: (caps are mine) "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. The also recognized that IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."
Is the Bible the inspired word of God?
Many preachers will stand in the pulpit or Christian authors will write books in which they say "The Bible is the inspired, infallible word of God." But what exactly are they referring to when they say this? There are presently well over 100 different English bible versions available to the general public and none of them agree with the others in both text and meaning in hundreds of verses. I can easily prove this and it is well noted by many atheists, Muslims and other Bible bashers on the internet.
So, which of these different bibles is really the inspired, inerrant words of God? Or has the complete, pure, inerrant words of God been somehow lost in the shuffle and God has failed to preserve His words as He promised?
Some Christians say, "Well, only the originals were inspired." Since we don't have any of the originals and nobody knows what they really said, how can we then say the Bible is the inspired words of God? Shouldn't we be saying, the bible WAS the inspired word of God?
I believe, along with thousands of other Christians, that God has kept His promises to preserve His words and He has done so in the King James Bible.
Modern versionists will say they are examining the evidence and trying to come up with the best text to restore the words of God. I believe God has already gone through this process using the men He chose to bring forth the King James Bible. If God has already done this in order to preserve His words and carry out the great modern missionary movement, there is no need to do it again, unless He decides to put His words into another language other than English.
Some speak of the same general message and principles being found in all valid versions. Yet we can point out many direct contradictions concerning these basic principles.
The "any bible will do" position leads to uncertainty, doubt and unbelief. There are a multitude of contradictory versions, several whole verses being found in some that are not in others. (17 entire verses omitted from the New Testament in the NIV, NASB, and even more in the RSV - when compared to the KJB, NKJV, TMB.)
Is the Jesus Christ in your bible the one who lied in John 7:8 NASB, ESV? The KJB, NIV, RV, and NKJV say: "Go ye up unto this feast: I go not up YET unto this feast; for my time is not yet full come"...verse 10 "But when his brethren were gone up, then went he also up unto the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret." But the NASB, ESV have Jesus saying: "I do NOT GO up to this feast... But when His brothers had gone up to the feast, then He Himself also went up".
Did the Lord Jesus Christ need a blood sacrifice to be cleansed from sin in Luke 2:22 as the NASB, NIV teach? Both these versions read: "when the days of THEIR purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished", as opposed to the KJB, NKJV, Geneva bibles which have "when the days of HER purification according to the law of Moses were accomplished". The only O.T. reference for this sin offering to make an atonements is found in Leviticus 12:6-8 where only the woman offered the sin offering for her purification.
Is the Lord Christ the one who has "origens from ancient times" in Micah 5:2 as the NIV, RSV, NWT teach, or were His "goings forth from everlasting" as the KJB, NKJV, NASB have it?
Can God be deceived as the NASB teaches in Ps. 78:36? The NASB says the children of Israel DECEIVED GOD with their mouths, but the NKJV, KJB, NIV, RV, ASV all say they "flattered" God with their mouths and lied unto Him. You can flatter God by saying nice things about Him but not letting Him control your behavior, but you certainly cannot deceive Him.
Is the Lord Jesus Christ the ONLY BEGOTTEN SON of God BEFORE His incarnation? The NIV never refers to Christ as "the only begotten Son". Christ was the only begotten Son from all eternity, but not in the NIV.
The NIV even perverts true doctrine when the Bible speaks of the resurrection of Christ, when He was quickened from the dead and raised again to life to become "the first begotten of the dead" (Revelation 1:5), and "the firstborn from the dead (Col. 1:18).
In Psalm 2 and Acts 13:33 where God says (and ALL GREEK TEXTS read) "God hath fulfilled the same unto us their children, in that he hath raised up Jesus AGAIN: as it is also written in the second Psalm, Thou art my Son, THIS DAY HAVE I BEGOTTEN THEE". The specific Day that Christ was begotten from the dead was that first Easter morning. However the NIV actually says "Today I HAVE BECOME YOUR FATHER"!!!
The NIV here teaches that there was a time when God was not the Father of Christ. This is also the reading of the Jehovah witness "bible" (New World translation), and they use this verse and Micah 5:2, which also reads the same in their version as the NIV, to prove that Jesus Christ is a created being and not from everlasting.
There are many lies found in the new bible versions and it is the accumulation of such lies that reveal them to be false witnesses to the whole truth of God. One such lie is found in 2 Samuel 14:14.
The context is when Absalom had slain Amnon because he raped his sister Tamar. Absalom fled to Geshur and was there for three years, yet the soul of king David longed for his son Absalom. Joab decides to put words in the mouth of a wise woman from Tekoah and he sends her to speak to the king.
In the course of their conversation the woman finally tells king David in 2 Samuel 14: 13 -14: "the king doth speak this thing as one which is faulty, in that the king doth not fetch home again his banished. For we must needs die, and are as water spilt on the ground, which cannot be gathered up again; NEITHER DOTH GOD RESPECT ANY PERSON: yet doth he devise means, that his banished be not expelled from him."
The meaning is pretty straightforward. We all must die and God does not respect any person or show partiality to one more than another in this regard.
Other Bible versions that read as the King James Bible are the Geneva Bible of 1599, the Jewish Publication Society of America's 1917 translation, Young's "literal" translation, Daniel Webster's 1833 translation, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible.
However when we get to the New KJV, the NIV and the NASB instead of "neither doth God respect any person" they read "YET GOD DOES NOT TAKE AWAY LIFE". This is a lie and a contradiction.
Just two chapters before this event we read of the child born to David in his adulterous affair with Bathseba that "the LORD struck the child, and it was very sick" and on the seventh day it died. 2 Samuel 12:15. In Deuteronomy 32:39 God Himself says: "I kill, and I make alive; I wound, and I heal: neither is there any that can deliver out of my hand." In Genesis 38:7 and 10 we read of two wicked sons of Judah, Er and Onan "and the LORD SLEW him", and "wherefore he slew him also." I Samuel 2:6 tells us: "The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up." And 2 Samuel 6:7 says: "And the anger of the LORD was kindled against Uzzah. and God smote him there for his error: and there he died by the ark of God."
In the New Testament the Lord Jesus Christ says in Luke 12:5 "But I will forwarn you whom ye shall fear: Fear him, which after he hath killed hath power to cast into hell; yea, I say unto you, Fear him."
God obviously does indeed take away life, and the NKJV, NIV and NASB are all in error here in 2 Samuel 14:14 where they say that He doesn't take away life.
In 2 Peter 3:12 the KJB correctly says we are "looking for and HASTING UNTO the coming of the day of God". The date is already fixed in God's timetable and nothing we can do will make it come any faster. It is we who in our fleeting lives are fast moving towards that day. However the NKJV, NIV, NASB all teach that we can "speed" or "hasten" the coming of the day of God. This contradicts numerous other Scriptures and is a false doctrine. See my more complete article on this verse here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/hastingunto.html
God is "no respecter of persons", but the NKJV, NASB, NIV say God is not partial. Which one is the truth? The phrases do not mean the same thing.
Not to show partiality is to treat all men equally; and this God does not do, as His word clearly testifies. For a fuller explanation see http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/respect.html
Our only hope of righteousness before God is to be clothed in the righteousness of Christ. He alone is our righteousness. Revelation 19:8 speaks of the church of God, the wife of the Lamb being arrayed in fine linen, clean and white. "for the fine linen is the righteousness of saints". Versions that read just like the KJV are Tyndale's New Testament of 1534, Geneva of 1599, Green�s interlinear, Daniel Webster's of 1833, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Bible in Basic English, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the Third Millenium Bible, and the 21st Century KJB version.
But the NKJV, NASB, ISV, Holman Christian Standard Bible, and the NIV have, �the fine linen is the RIGHTEOUS ACTS of the saints.� If our righteous acts are going to make up our wedding dress, it will be pretty soiled and tattered. So, which one is true?
Psalm 10:4 describes a wicked man: "The wicked, through the pride of his countenance, will not seek after God; GOD IS NOT IN ALL HIS THOUGHTS." In other words, in everything this man thinks, God never enters the picture. The NKJV, NIV agree with the KJV. But the NAS has "All his thoughts are 'There is no God.'" Not even the staunchest atheist walks around all day long thinking; "there is no god, there is no god, there is no god." This is a false and preposterous statement in the NASB.
Ephesians 5:13 says along with the NKJV, NIV,ASV, Darby, Geneva and Spanish: "But all things that are reproved are made manifest by the light; for WHATSOEVER DOTH MAKE MANIFEST IS LIGHT." In other words, the light of God's truth shows things for what they really are. It tells us what sin and unrighteousness are by exposing them. The NAS would have us believe "everything that becomes visible is light," Oh, really?
No idols in the world, huh?
Is Judah faithful to God as the KJB, RSV, NKJV teach or is Judah unruly against God as the NASB, NIV teach in Hosea 11:12?
These are just a few of the problems you have if you think God is the one guiding and directing the modern versionists. This God seems to be a bit confused and muddled in his thinking. He can't seem to make up his mind as to what he said or meant.
So if you think all these modern versions are from God, you have no sure words and your case is getting worse all the time as new versions continue to roll off the presses which in turn contradict the previous ones.
Wasn't there something written in the Bible that told us of the falling away from the faith in the last days?
Has Satan changed in his hatred and opposition to the words of God?
Has man "evolved" to a higher state in these last days and so now he can think more clearly?
If the gospel of salvation in Jesus Christ is found only in the Bible, and this "bible" contains contradictions, false information, completely different meanings in scores of verses, many verses found in some but not in others, then how do we know the gospel of which they speak is true?
If God hasn't kept His promises to preserve His words, then how do you know God will keep His promise to preserve your soul?
Is the Bible the inspired, inerrant words of God? And if so, what are you referring to when you say this?