Response to Will Kinney

Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Let it be clearly stated from the very beginning of my response to his book that Mr. Price’s belief is that there does not exist today, nor has there ever existed anywhere on this earth, a complete Book containing all the inspired, infallible, providentially preserved and 100% true words of God. Mr. Price has no such Book to recommend to anyone and he knows it.


No book contains all the words of God. (Jhn 21:25)
Timothy knew the Scriptures while the NT was as yet incomplete. (II Tim 3:15)
At least one book containing the prophecies of God has been completely lost to us. (Jde 14)

If I tell you the truth you do not need to repeat my words exactly or even completely to convey the truth.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
However it is an undeniable fact that Mr. Price and multitudes like him do not believe that God has fulfilled His promises to preserve all His words of truth in any single “book of the LORD” here on this earth today. This is the central issue discussed in his book and addressed by my response to it.


I doubt Dr. Price thinks God doesn't keep His promises. This is a mean spirited thing to say. Rather, Dr. Price doesn't see a requirement for God to preserve in the way that KJVOs demand.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Throughout his book he presents what he thinks is the conservative, traditional view that ONLY the originals were inspired. He continually refers in a nebulous and undefined manner to “THE Hebrew and THE Greek” IN THE PRESENT TENSE as the only inspired word of God, apparently hoping that no one will notice that there is no such animal on the face of this earth, and there is wide and intense disagreement as to what “the originals” may or may not have said.


The Hebrew and the Greek ManuscriptS, PLURAL, or Manuscript, SINGULAR? Of course Dr. Price knows there is no ONE manuscript set, and is referring to them in plural. You, sir, ASSUMED he meant SINGULAR and upon that faulty ASSUMPTION accused him of deliberate deceit ("hoping that no one will notice").
You also intimate that Dr. Price tried to make it appear there is no real disagreement about the readings of the autographs. If he believed that he wouldn't have written the book.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
On page 2 he affirms the position he was taught at seminary by favorably referring to a quote from Henry C. Thiessen, a man he calls “a well-known conservative theologian” who wrote concerning the divine inspiration of Scripture: “Inspiration is affirmed ONLY of the autographs (the originals) of the Scriptures, not of any of the versions, whether ancient or modern, nor of any Hebrew or Greek manuscripts in existence, nor of any critical text known.”


Do you have a problem with that?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
He quotes with approval the London Confession which is derived from the Westminster Confession of 1649 which says: “The Old Testament IN HEBREW, and the New Testament IN GREEK, being immediately inspired by God AND BY HIS CARE AND PROVIDENCE KEPT PURE IN ALL AGES, ARE therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of Religion, the Church is finally to appeal to them.”

It should be asked at this point that if Mr. Price really believes this great statement of faith, then why does he himself not believe that the true Old Testament text has been providentially preserved in the Hebrew? As we shall see, Mr. Price often sides with versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman Standard where these editors believe the Hebrew texts have been either corrupted or lost, and he instead supports the wildly variant readings taken from either the alleged Greek Septuagint, the Syriac, the Vulgate or just plain made up by men?


God has providentially preserved the text to the extent that the truth conveyed remains pure. The Westminster statement isn't arguing for a flawless text. You read into classic statements of faith your own KJVO bias.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Mr. Price further reveals his obfuscation and poorly thought out position by continually saying things like he does on page five: “No translation is granted authority over THE Hebrew and Greek”. Mr. Price, WHICH Hebrew and WHICH “the” Greek are you referring to? Anyone can go to the footnotes of such modern versions as the NIV, RSV, ESV, and Holman Standard and see for themselves that they constantly refer to “Some Hebrew manuscripts read”, “two Hebrew mss. read”; “A few Hebrew mss. read”, “Dead Sea Scrolls read”, “Some Septuagint mss. read”; “a few late manuscripts of the Septuagint read”, “Many other Hebrew mss. read” etc.

As for “THE” Greek, anybody who has a rudimentary knowledge about the so called “science” of textual criticism, knows that there are at least 25 different printed Greek texts in existence, and many of these differ from the others anywhere from 3000 to over 7000 words for the New Testament alone, as documented by men like Dr. Donald Waite and Jack Moorman.


If WE can't know what Greek and Hebrew to follow, how did the KJV TRANSLATORS know? You shoot yourself in the foot with this argument.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Following such Greek editions as Westcott and Hort, and the constantly changing Nestle-Aland critical texts,


As opposed to your TR? The TR underwent constant change for almost 200 years.
http://www.bible-researcher.com/received.html

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
versions like the RSV have omitted some 40 entire verses from the N.T. text plus another 2000 words or so from other N.T. portions.


They are only "omitted" if you take the KJV as the standard. Isn't this what you are trying to prove? If you were being fair you might say something like "versions like the RSV have 40 less verses..." You yourself know chapter and verse divisions themselves were based on the TR. So here again you are basing your argument on what you are trying to prove.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
None of the modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB, ESV or Holman always follows the same Hebrew or Greek texts, and even when they do, the resultant translations are often radically different in meaning from the other ones.


You confuse your readers by lumping the NKJV, which based on the TR, with the other versions based on the CT. I have already responded to your "ever-changing" CT comment.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Typical of the long list of modern attempts to state their faith in the authority of an undefined “Scripture” is this one from the Southwide Baptist Fellowship found on page 7 of his book. It states: “We believe in the verbal inspiration of the 66 books of the Bible IN ITS ORIGINAL WRITINGS and that IT IS without error and IS the sole authority in all matters of faith and practice.” Well, this all sounds very pious indeed, but notice that both Mr. Price and this confession talk about something they have never seen a day in their lives, and that they all know does not exist, and yet they refer to it in the present tense as something that IS without error and IS our sole authority. This is an absurd and illogical fairy tale, and I and thousands of other Christians do not believe it for a second.


Why do we need to see the original autographs when we can reconstruct them? Isn't that what textual criticism is all about? You bluster about the supposed confusion over greek and hebrew and new versions and assume because you are confused that others are too.
James White answers your "confusion" best:
"If we say that we can have no certainty regarding the biblical text unless we embrace the KJV (or the TR), we are simply moving the question one step back and hoping no one notices. How can we be certain of the textual choices of Desiderius Erasmus, or Stephanus, or Theodore Beza? Are we not, in reality, saying, "Well, I must have certainty, therefore, without any factual or logical or even scriptural reason for doing so, I will invest the KJV translators with ultimate authority." This is, truly, what KJV Only advocates are doing when they close their eyes to the historical realities regarding the biblical text."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
The only “revisions” the King James Bible has gone through are the changes in format from the Gothic type to the Roman, the modernization of certain words like Sonne to Son, sinne to sin, and the correction of various minor printing errors that have occured and continue to occur in ALL printings of the bible or any book even in modern times.


Completely and totally untrue. Here are examples:

2Ti 4:13
1611- The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou commest, bring with thee, but especially the parchments.
TODAY - The cloke that I left at Troas with Carpus, when thou comest, bring with thee, and the books, but especially the parchments.

Lev 26:40
1611- If they shall confesse the iniquitie of their fathers, with their trespasse which they trespassed against me, and that also they haue walked contrary vnto me:
TODAY - If they shall confess their iniquity, and the iniquity of their fathers, with their trespass which they trespassed against me, and that also they have walked contrary unto me;

1Sa 18:27
1611- Wherefore Dauid arose, hee and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men, and Dauid brought their foreskinnes, and they gaue them in full tale to the king, that hee might be the kings sonne in law: and Saul gaue him Michal his daughter to wife.
TODAY - Wherefore David arose and went, he and his men, and slew of the Philistines two hundred men; and David brought their foreskins, and they gave them in full tale to the king, that he might be the king's son in law. And Saul gave him Michal his daughter to wife.

II Kgs 11:10
1611- And to the captaines ouer hundreds, did the Priest giue king Dauids speares and shields, that were in the Temple.
TODAY- And to the captains over hundreds did the priest give king David's spears and shields, that were in the temple of the LORD.

Mat 12:23
1611- And all the people were amazed, and said, Is this the sonne of Dauid?
TODAY - And all the people were amazed, and said, Is not this the son of David?

I Cor 12:28
1611- And God hath set some in the Church, first Apostles, secondarily Prophets, thirdly Teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helpes in gouernmets, diuersities of tongues.
TODAY - And God hath set some in the church, first apostles, secondarily prophets, thirdly teachers, after that miracles, then gifts of healings, helps, governments, diversities of tongues.

I Jhn 5:12
1611- Hee that hath the Sonne, hath life; and hee that hath not the Sonne, hath not life.
TODAY - He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Mr. Price again reveals his schizophrenic thinking when, after making a list of Scrivenir’s “errors” in the previos printings of the KJB, he then says: “Concerning the 24,000 variations, the American Bible Society Report stated, ‘Yet of all this great number, there is not one, which mars the integrity of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible.”


You agree with this I presume? The point Dr. Price would be making here is that textual differences don't affect the doctrinal integrity of the Bible, not trying to put down the KJV. You are not seeing this.

BTW I appreciate the time and study you spent on Acts 19:20 and other verses. This type of study needs to happen more frequently, were it will vindicate the new versions at times, and the KJV at times.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
He begins wrapping up his arguments about the “archaic and obsolete words” and lists 2 pages worth. Most of these words are not archaic at all, but are found in many printed books today. There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.
I always find it ironic and blindly hypocritical for some scholar to tell us he himself can understand the King James Bible (as Mr. Price does), but then tell us that ‘other people’ have a hard time with the language. Of course a good dictionary that anybody can pick up and read will go a long way in clarifying the meaning of these good old English words.


A quick look at http://www.christiananswers.net/dic...y/kjvwords.html would suggest otherwise.

One word is interesting:
Taches - Webster's 1828: TACHE, n. [See Tack.] Something used for taking hold or holding; a catch; a loop; a button. It is found in Scripture, but I believe is not now used in discourse or writing. Exo 26.

Other words you will be hard pressed to find in most dictionaries:
Emerods
Chambering
Euroclydon
Fitches
Winefat

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
At least the King James Bible believer DOES HAVE a definite underlying Hebrew and Greek text he can go to if need be to find out which printing error is right. ALL Modern, Multi-Versionists like James Price and James White clearly DO NOT.


As of 1611 the NT of the KJV perfectly matched no TR in existance. Nor did the OT of the KJV perfectly match any Masoretic Text. Where are YOUR definate underlying Hebrew and Greek texts? Scrivener's TR matches the KJV NT for the simple reason that he REVERSE ENGINEERED the KJV NT to get it.
Fact is, you don't have any final authority! You complain that modern scholars don't have "THE GREEK" while you ignore the fact that the original manuscript of the KJV was lost within a hundred years.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Then Mr. Price begins to reveal his Achilles heel when he says: “They thought that the printed editions of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT available to them in their day were reliable representatives of the autographic texts.”

We would agree with Mr. Price and the Westminster Confession that was formulated in England in the year 1646. But may we be permitted to point out a couple of inconvenient facts here? What Bible were they referring to in 1649 that “by the providence and care of God had been kept pure in all ages” and was currently in widespread use throughout the churches in England at that time? It was the King James Bible.


The Westminster Confession was drawn up by the Westminster Assembly in 1646 which was composed of those in the Church of England who used the KJV because King James, as head of the church of England, authorized it for use in those churches. Not because they were proto-KJVOists.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
He concludes: “No matter what theory a person prefers, the recovery of the autographic text is left with some degree of uncertainty.”


You never answer this obivously factual statement.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Since Mr. Price was one of the chief editors of the New King James Version, it is little surprise that he would support such an undecided and vague view of the preservation of Scriptures. Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY 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."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 7000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.


You shoot yourself in the foot again here. You are not ignorant of the original 1611 marginal notes are you? The ones that cast doubt on the text?
See http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof
Notes at: Jdg 19:2; Ezr 10:40; Psa 102:3; Mat 1:11; Luk 10:22, 17:36; Acts 25:6; Eph 6:9; Jas 2:18; I Pet 2:21; II Pet 2:2, 11, 18; II Jhn 8

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Mr. Price again makes a silly argument against the possibility of a Translation being the inerrant word of God when he says on page 131: “But translations are the product of fallible men who cannot claim perfection.” Well, Duh.... How about those “fallible men who cannot claim perfection” that God used to give us the originals in the first place? If being fallible and imperfect men disqualifies any of us from being the chosen vessels of passing down God’s inspired words to succeeding generations, then the originals would never had been penned in the first place! His argument proves too much.


Well if you left any doubt before as to whether or not you believe the KJV is re-inspired, it is gone now. Only divine guidance equal to or exceeding inspiration is sufficient for flawless perfection. This is the point that KJVO people miss, and why true KJVOism logically ends up in a belief in re-inspiration.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Then he again sticks his foot in his mouth when he says that “the Hebrew and Greek words cannot be perfectly transferred into another language (like English) without the loss of precision....Translation always involves some degree of deficiency. The most that can be expected of the best translation is an optimum transfer of information, not perfection, even with alleged providential preservation.”

He might want to take up his argument with the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles who continually “translated” from the inspired Hebrew and put it into another language for the New Testament, or with the apostle Paul who preached virtually a whole chapter in one language that was translated into another inspired one in Acts 22. This whole idea that a translation cannot be the inspired word of God did not come from the Bible, but from the seminary where they took both his money and his faith in an inerrant Bible.


A lack of textual precision does not always result in a lack of truth! Admitting the inherant difficulties involved in ANY translation project is just plain honest. Will Kenney, what you are doing is saying Truth=Certainty, and Certainty=Truth, and that is a dangerous game that often ends in self-delusion. These two equalities are inviolable axioms for every KJVO person and in my OPINION I said OPINION- are rooted in psychological issues.

A lack of precision does result in a lack of clarity. So what? We have his Holy Spirit.

You might as well be telling me that Jesus went to heaven and said he would send the KJV to lead us into all truth. NO HE DIDN'T.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Please see the article called “Can a Translation Be Inspired” - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html


So you do believe the KJV was inspired! I am suprised the moderators haven't booted you yet.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
The idea that there was no authoritative Pre-Christian Greek Septuagint did not originate with Dr. Peter Ruckman. Others too throughout history have noted that what passes for the LXX is actually codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and that readings from an already completed New Testament were “back-translated” and placed into the so called Greek Septuagint.


What "Others"? The KJV translators THEMSELVES recognized an early date for the LXX. This from the KJV 1611 preface:
"This is the translation of the Seventy Interpreters, commonly so called, which prepared the way for our Saviour among the Gentiles by written preaching, as Saint John Baptist did among the Jews by vocal.
[...]
"The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
Mr. Price also claims the Old Latin bibles are not on the side of the King James Bible, just as Doug Kutilek does. Yet how these gentlemen can ignore even their own Nestle-Aland footnotes that confirm the existence of every major disputed verse omitted in many modern versions as being found in these old bibles is beyond me.

You can see the evidence for yourself in this article about the Old Latin readings and the disputed King James Bible verses here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html


No one ever said the Old Latin doesn't support KJV readings at times, just simply that it can't be classified as Byzantine. Read Kutilek for yourself: http://www.kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_waldensian.htm


Quote:
Originally Posted by Will Kinney
“The Bible, like all other things in life, has a measure of uncertainty associated with its identity...Sound reason has shown that this uncertainty provides no practical basis for doubting the authenticity or authority of Scripture; instead, reason provides the stepping stone for faith to move beyond uncertainty to full confidence in God’s Word....I plan to continue to use my King James Versions and other modern versions, to employ what seems to be the best method of textual criticism, and to retain my confidence in the Hebrew and Greek texts of he Bible as the divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, in spite of the occasional uncertainty.”

Can you see that Huge White Elephant standing in the middle of the room here?


I wish you would have dealt with the issue of certainty raised by Price, instead of falling back on your "Elephant" of, "well you don't have the perfect word of God..."
Comments