A Video Rebuttal to a KJV-only Post


Did you know that you can be friends with people you don’t agree with? Well, it’s true!

I have a friend named Heather. Heather is a great person, and one that I highly respect. As a matter of fact, if it had not been for Heather, I would have stopped blogging long ago. She was one of the first ones to encourage me, so I will forever be in her debt.

I will remain friends with Heather, promote her blog, and encourage others to hear what she has to say. She is my friend and sister in Christ, but that doesn’t mean we always agree.


Heather and I disagree on some issues; some minor, others not so minor. For example, Heather is a strong believer in the idea that the King James Version of the English Bible is the perfect, inspired version.  I, on the other hand, believe that the KJV is only a translation of the Word of God, not the inspired Word itself. Big difference.

Recently, Heather posted the latest installment of Dr. Sam Gipp’s videos promoting KJV-onlyism. That is when I decided to post a video by James White  which would better clarify my opinion on the issue. So, please take the time to watch both videos, then decide for yourself which position is more reasonable.


Let me make this perfectly clear: people in the same family can disagree, but it doesn’t change the fact that they are family. Many people will say, “You Christians can’t agree, so why would I want to be a part of your family?” To that I would reply, “Did you agree with all of your spouse’s relatives before you got married?”

Healthy debate is a good thing. And even though we may disagree on some things, love and respect is always in order.

Go check out Heather Joy’s blog, Grow Up! She is bright, insightful, and full of spunk. You will like her, even if she does agree with Dr. Gipp.



Filed under Christian Living, Christian Unity, legalism, Relationships and Family, translations

62 responses to “A Video Rebuttal to a KJV-only Post

  1. Dear Sir,
    I’ve made a website that proves the KJV is God’s Word in a very detailed and easy to use section called “Without the Gate”. Please do not get fooled in to thinking that we are “legalists” for not wanting “bibles” fiddles around with by textual critics. Please leave a question or comment at:
    I’ve been using the resources for about 8 months and most of Mr. Whites claims and logic is easily broken apart by history and the Bible.
    As a brother under the blood of Jesus Christ,
    Joseph Armstrong

  2. Regarding the KJV.

    I grew up in a very small church so we had a series of pastors from various denominational backgrounds. Some adhered to KJV-onlyism while others didn’t seem to care. Either way we only ever had NIV bibles in the pews.

    I do recall, however, the low-level infighting that occurred any time the topic was discussed. I didn’t understand then, nor do I now, how one could rationally argue that a medieval-era translation of the Bible was necessarily more accurate / better / more holy / what-have-you than other versions. After all, the whole idea was that the Bible is / was the holy inspired word of God. If God saw fit to allow new or different translations to reach his people, why wouldn’t we accept them?

    I think it is patently ridiculous to argue that any one translation of the Bible is superior to others.

    • I grew up in such a small church that when we got a pastor he would stay for a few years, the funds of the church to support him would be depleated, and he would move on, leaving us with no pastor for many months. None of my pastors at that church were KJVO.

      I’m glad that there are some people out there that are honest and willing to change their opinions based on facts and evidence. It is refreshing to find some people that believe God and the Bible already. I spent the last week debating an ardent and vicious young woman. She despised Bible Christianity and when ever I offered real evidence all she ever did is talk it down and ask for more, though she would never even accept an undeniable evidence for the pride and hardness of her heart.

      “Low level of infighting” hardly describes what happened before I left my home church. The young new pastor was absolutely fixated on the education he got from a near-by and obviously liberal “Christian” college. He blew up everytime I mentioned the KJV and even turned my best friend (his son) and my brother against it. It was a bad situation; within were fears so, I stayed away for good.

      One correction: the KJV is not a midieval translation. That period (correct me if I’m wrong) ended in the 1500’s. The KJV would have been a post-Reformation Bible (1611 AD). There is no doubt that it is not a lesser among many equles. Most other versions have eronious translations and fulty dynamic equivelencies, but the KJV has not been demonstrated wrong once. Does that alone mean that it is the only one that is of God? No. But it is surely the only one with Matt. 18:11. Every version printed with errors that can be demonstrated is not God’s word (and I’m not talking about archeologically, that changes all the time and has always vindicated the Biblical text, as with tetrarchs [NT] and pens [OT]).

      The Bible is the word of God and (contrary to McDowell) we must be able to find a copy of it if we can believe the 100% Bible doctrine of constant preservation. Remember Isaiah 40:8: The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever.”

      Sir, is the NIV perfect and if we were to update it to day with every thing we know would it be? Is there any Bible that we can point at and say, “That’s God’s word!”? If you’re out soul winning how do you win someone to faith without faith in the perfection of the Book? As far as I know, it cannot be done.

      God obviously did not “choose” to speak to his people through the J. B. Phillips translation for it died off quickly and was hardly used by anyone.
      Do you think that Satan is tainting everything that has to do with Christianity and leaving his hands off the Bible? I should hope not. There are many errors that are in every modern bible and some that are even perticular to themselves (take the NIV rendering in Hebrews 11:11 which reads unlike any Greek MSS in the entire world).

      I hope you’ll be interested in finding out if there is a perfect Bible in the black and evil world to day. The thought is typically either very frightening or very comforting. Ultimatly, it takes faith just like salvation in the blood of Christ dose. But, faith in the truth need never be blind, it will always manifent through evidence.
      Please contact me for any specific questions. Please exesct an answer.
      God bless.

      As a brother under the blood of Jesus Christ,
      Joseph Armstrong

      • In the interest of full disclosure, Joseph, you should know that I am an atheist now. I left the church and the faith about two years ago.

        You’re absolutely right about the medieval dates. I was being hasty and dismissive and I was incorrect. Thank you for pointing that out.

        To be honest, I didn’t even know about some of the differences between the KJV and other more modern versions until you mentioned them. I think that is interesting and I will need to read about it further.

        However, I have a different question for you:

        You mentioned a couple of times that the Bible must necessarily be “perfect” in order to be an effective witnessing tool. How, then, do you deal with the numerous and ambiguous contradictory passages?

        There are dozens but a couple off the top of my head include the nature of Judas’ death (did he hang himself as indicated in Matt. 27 or did he jump off a cliff, exploding his guts, as indicated in Acts 1) or if God has been seen (Exodus 24) or he’s never been seen (John 1).

        So I would consider these occurrences a signature of a man-created, imperfect, document. Because that’s what we do as humans…we makes mistakes. There’s nothing at all to indicate any divine intervention in its writing, translation, or distribution.

        Once again, I’m forced to conclude that what can be perceived and reasoned fits perfectly in line with the idea that there just isn’t a god at all. Or, to be fair, not the one of the Bible.

      • “There’s nothing at all to indicate any divine intervention in its writing, translation, or distribution.”

        Now that sounds like a pretty absolute statement to me. That would even rule out other’s perceptions of what could be interpreted as “miraculous” or “divine intervention.” There, again, it seems to me that you can look at the very same thing that another looks at, and, based on your own biases and preconceptions, interpret it completely different. In other words, where a person of faith sees a miracle, you see coincidence. Sorts reminds me of the movie “Signs.”

      • Oops! Sorry, I’m not disgussing the modern version issue with an atheist. All of your questions have answers, but your salvation by grace through faith in the blood of Jesus Christ is the one you need to address. You need to be saved from hell, boy.

        If it was “science falsely so called” that “con-verted” you to atheism, I’d watch the Hovind Seminar Series on my site. He destroyes the common “evidences” for evolutionism. If you want some tecnical evidence from geology on the co-existence of man and dinosaurs see:

        “Contradictory passeges” do not come up in soul winning. And every one of them has been explained and dealt with. (See “The Book of Bible Problems”) Judas died the same way in all the accounts in the New Testament. Matthew says he hanged himself. Acts says he fell headlong and “burst asunder in the midst”. This is quite a graphic picture with no streaching involved. Or at least none on the part of Judas. Apparently he put the rope around his neck and lept. RIPPPPP! All the so called contradictions are there for a reason, but thankfully there are those who heav done their homework on them. Sorry, your pastor could not teach you better.
        May you be saved from the burning hell we both deserve,

      • First of all, Joseph, I find it completely ironic that a Christian and an atheist (he says he is, but I don’t believe him – but that’s a different issue) are debating Bible translations. If not ironic, it’s completely surreal.

        Secondly, I really don’t know what one’s preference of Bible version has to do with whether or not the man posing as a pastor is a crook. Are you making assumptions that any pastor, such as myself, if he doesn’t hold a KJV-only view, is automatically one who will take advantage of a congregation? Surely that is not what you are saying, is it?

        I am sad to read of the things you went through. I am sorry to hear that one “brother” turned you against another. That type of stuff would not be allowed where I am, if it were up to me.

      • You’re right, Anthony. My statement was unintentionally absolute. What I meant to say was that, having been on both sides of the fence, I do not find anything that indicates, to me, the occurrence of miracles. That is to say, the shortcomings of the Bible indicate, to me, the involvement of mistake-prone men and mistake-prone men only.

        As far as discussing translations with Joe, it shouldn’t be too surprising! Consider Bart Ehrman, for example. An agnostic, he is considered one of the foremost scholars on the Bible.

      • Woody, please refrain from calling me “boy.”

        I am not afraid of hell. I find the idea patently absurd, as should you, but I’m guessing we’re going to have to agree to disagree.

        And regarding contradictions / errors…they’re way down on the long list of why I don’t believe. I am much more concerned with the bizarre content of the bible than I am the translation issues / errors.

      • oh and one other thing, Woody.

        I tried to follow your link for Jack Hyles on your website in reference to “THE PARTNERSHIP BETWEEN LOVE AND HATE.”

        It is blocked where I am. Specifically, under the category of “Racism & Hate.”


      • It is not recist in the least. The subject does not even apear in the sermon. The speaker’s hatred is based on the love of good, peace and people. Everyone hates something: i.e. anything that is anti-what you love. What you love chooses what you hate. Always and without fail. No Christian hates any man’s soul (black, Muslim, etc.), they can only hate what the person does or what they have become (liar, murderer, etc.). I have no doubt that some fringe mean man decided that he did not like the convicting and exposing sermon, “reported” it, and got it labled as “hate speach”.

      • “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Matthew 18.11 Tomson (1576)
        “For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost.” Matthew 18.11 Challoner (1752)

        Your assertion that the KJV is the only English Bible with that content in that location is demonstrably false. The Tomson and Challoner translations were very popular among their users at the time they were used.

        For the record, you will also find a stronger form of the verse at Luke 19.10, which I have translated, “For the son of man has come to seek out and save the perishing.”

  3. Andrew,

    Believe it or not, I was looking at Facebook, saw this article, read it, then thought to myself, “I think I will share that with Andrew.” Then, I copy the link, click on my blog, then notice that there was a message waiting – from you. Now, to you that would be coincidence. To me, I see it differently.


    • Anthony,

      Thank you for the article! I just finished reading it. Very interesting!

      It is especially interesting that the author appears to have abandoned her homosexual lifestyle concurrent with her conversion to Christianity.

      From a science standpoint, homosexual behavior has been observed in over 1,500 species and well-documented in 500 of them. Now, I am not drawing any definite conclusions other than observing that if, indeed, we’re evolved as other species are evolved, homosexuality in our species is both not a conscious choice and is also not a unique phenomena. What is your opinion on the various “gay therapy / gay conversion” camps springing up around the country? What is your opinion on why Christians strictly observe some OT law and not others? I’ve heard reason given such as the differing classification of such laws but, not only does that seem thin, but Jesus himself mentioned that not one iota would be struck from the law…

      The very first part of the article, the subtitle in fact, identified the author as a former “leftist.” This is a phenomenon I’ve found keenly interesting. It is no secret that the Christian establishment votes overwhelmingly in favor of right or right-leaning candidates. Except, Jesus could not have been further from being a Republican. Check it out:

      As far as the whole story goes, I am glad the author has found peace. It seems she struggled with her choices, lifestyle, anger, etc for a number of years. I am glad she found acceptance from an unlikely source. It seems Ken Smith is the type of pastor Jesus really had in mind.

      My problem is that I am an objectivist. Consider this exchange for example: You believe that it is quite possible that God led you to this article in order to witness to me. And that’s entirely possible! I don’t know.

      But I look at the same situation and realize that you likely read dozens of articles on Christianity. Concurrently, we discuss these matters frequently on your blog. Is it too far fetched to accept that it is likely that you simply have frequent conversations with an atheist (me) and you read an article about an atheist (Rosaria) who converted and you thought to share it with me. Coincidence!

      What I also mean to say is that I am not against the idea of belief itself. At least, insofar as beliefs aren’t pushed on others. It is more that I don’t think I *can* believe even if I decided that I wanted to…

      • The last thing you said about not being able to believe, even if you wanted to, takes me right back to a conversation that I had not even two hours ago with one of my professors, Dr. Christopher J. Black. A discussion on postmodernism led to the subject of skepticism and atheists who only want to deny, deny, deny. Dr. Black mentioned talking with one atheist who wouldn’t hear anything he said, as if nothing he said was worth listening to. The atheist had already made up his mind and had summarily ruled any evidence to the contrary as nonsense and not worth hearing. Yet, the atheist kept asking, “Prove it!”

        Dr. Black then said an illustration came to his mind. One man said to another, “I don’t believe there is a such thing as a dime.” The second man said, “Well I do.” The first replied, “Show me the evidence,” to which the second pulled out a shiny dime and placed in on the table in front of them.

        “There’s your dime. It’s real” said the second man. The first still doesn’t believe and says something to the effect of “you could have just made that up to resemble the image of a dime you see in your mind.”

        The second man then reaches into his pocket and pulls out several more dimes, but the first man comes back with another philosophical reason addressing the laws of probability.

        Finally, the second man goes out and comes back with a wheel barrel load of dimes and says, “Here! This should prove there are such things as dimes. Here is all the evidence one could ever need!”

        “That doesn’t prove a thing,” the first man says to the bewildered second man. “I don’t believe in dimes.”

        You see, Andrew? That is you. It doesn’t matter what evidence is given you, you have determined not to believe. You say, “there are errors!” Yet, when an error is found in anything else, you don’t toss it, you just modify the theory. I am just afraid that your heart is so hard that you are blinding yourself to things that are obvious to others. You don’t want to believe.

        That is why I thought of you when I read that article. The last thing she wanted to do was take a step of faith, but when she did, well, you know the story.

      • But what you cite as evidence could be as easily attributed to naturalism as it could to theism. You choose to accept it as theism just as stubbornly as I won’t. Where is the delineation?

        I’m also not asking you to prove anything. I can’t “prove” there isn’t a God any more than you can “prove” there is! My conclusion is drawn from what I consider to be a rational examination of evidence. The very definition of what you believe is that it cannot be demonstrated or proven. That is the role of faith; you choose to believe in god despite a lack of evidence or even in spite of evidence.

        And you should also know that my disbelief / skepticism was not a cheerful road. Like the author of the article, who was dragged kicking and screaming into faith, I was drug kicking and screaming into apostasy. It has created tension with my fiance, her family, my own family…lots of awkwardness, sadness, etc. I didn’t want it then and I don’t even really like it now. But I am an honest person, someone who isn’t afraid to face difficult scenarios when they’re presented. So I could have buried my penchant for rationalism and just go through the motions and keep everybody happy. But that would be lying. And I don’t like lying.

        And my heart isn’t hard. I’ve felt a better peace in the last year or so than I’ve known for a long time. But, you mentioned this disposition has caused me to be blind to what others find obvious.

        I am curious about that. Is it possible you’re so blinded by the idea of Christianity that you’re blinded to the “truth” of, say, Islam? These guys find their truths, in their respect, just as obvious as you find yours:

        And I am sure for every reason you think they’re wrong, they have their own version of why you’re wrong.

        And that’s just one separate example among the thousands of beliefs held around the world.

        And people have struggled with this for thousands of years. I guess you’re among the lucky ones to have figured it out.

      • So many philosophers have searched for a belief that ties everything together. I see it in the incarnation, life, death, and resurrection of Jesus Christ. He is both transcendent and immanent. He is my hope and my consolation. He is my strength, and he is my peace. To be more like Him is the goal for which I strive.

        My friend, we’ve never met, but I hope you know I care about you and pray for you. You say your heart is not hard, and I pray that’s true. When you do finally come back around, I believe you will make a world-class apologist and defender of the faith.

        And by the way, I apologize for those who claim the name of Christ and speak with condescension. Any one who would every serve our country in uniform is a man.

  4. Baker,
    I would recomend “Jesus Christ, DNA and the Holy Bible” by Hoggard for you to watch. It’s on You Tube and on my site.

  5. To go back to the beginning topic (sorry!), one of the most interesting and enlightening courses I took in college was The Old Testament as Literature. It was taught by one of the most amazing, faithful Christians I have ever met – truly a woman after the Lord’s own heart – who was also a Hebrew and Greek scholar. (I say this because I assume that Mr. Armstrong will postulate that the course was taught by someone who does not believe in the Bible or was not educated enough) Anyway, it was so interesting because we looked at the narratives of the Old Testament as one would analyze a piece of literature in an English course, since much of the Bible was written at a time when using imagery and other literary devices was the only accepted way to write an important account.
    Either way, obviously the Bible has a common theme (oh look – a literary device!) and that is the love of a merciful God for his creation made imperfect by its own choice. Every translation of the Bible conveys that theme, whether KJV or not.

    • The Bible is a book and can be considered “literature”. However, anyone that does not believe that it is true does not believe it, Right?

    • Sure the Bible is “literature” in that it is a book. But “literary devices” are used by everyone that writes, so you cannot religate something to the mean status of “good literature” by simply “discovering” its use of theme (consistency). The Bible says, “Thy word is truth.” (John 17:17); I do not care if someone claims to be a Christian and lives a spiritual and meaningful life, if the person does not believe that the Bible (God’s word which is true from the begining [Psalm 119:160]) is factual, the person is not a Bible believer. If your Old Testament As Literature “professor” and “scholar” in “original languages” religates Noah’s Ark, the Tower of Babel and the Ten Commandments to myth, yet thinks God is wonderful and lovin’, she is casting doubt and disrespect on the word of God and is causing young people to hate the Bible. The Bible is literature, however it is the only Book that the infinite and judging God ever wrote and it deserves 10 times more of your attention and reverence than any “scholarly work”, Carismatic “word” or so-called literary classic.

      Any person (I do not care how “conservative” [every one of them dealeth falsely in Jeremiah 6:13]) that believes she can correct my King James Bible or resurrect it from the junk heap of third century manuscripts does not believe that God preserved His words (Psalm 12:7; Isaiah 30:8) unto “to all nations” (Matt. 16:26) is not in the position to be teaching what they do not believe is perfect. This is anti-Bible and unbiblical “philisophy and vain deceit” (Colossins 2:8).

      Give me one (for I KNOW that there is not any) verse in the Bible where God said that He would at least be able to give those of this century the ideas contained in the “original autographs” or implied gave such a discomforting notion. God says in the Bible that every generation (Ps. 12:7; Psalm 119:160; Psalm 119:89-91) and every nation (Matt. 16:26; Is. 28:11) would have His words and that includes English, friend. If you only want a “bible” that contains the general idea or the “theme” of what God’s word says, good luck living by “the Greek” and good luck hating me and everyone else that wish the NIV and the NKJV were never born. We biblically hate those and other devilish perversions of the scriptures (Jer. 23:36; II Cor. 2:17; Mark 4:15). The King James Bible has never been proven wrong once, EVER (and yes I mean I John 5:7, Revelation 16:5; Isaiah 9:3), and it never shall be shown incorrect. The NIV and the NASB (your scholarly good enoughs) are loaded with out right contradictions (conpare “seven hundred of their charioteers” [II Samuel 10:18] to “seven thousand of their charioteers” [I Choronicles 19:18] or the stupid idea that Mark 1:2 is some where in Isaiah for example). The NIV, NASB, TEV, NLT, etc., are not defendable as the “word of God” nor would I want to look stupid by trying to defend any one of these “modern scholarly translations” as being perfect or in attempting to claim that the ideas and not ther very words were inspired and preserved (when the Bible clearly teaches otherwise) while I can trust the litteral interperetation of the saving blood of Jesus Christ.

      Quit this anti-Bible, anti-God foolery.
      The crazy thing about your and the blog owner’s type is that you never have Bible verses to show against my perfect Bible, only lop-sided MSS evidence and “scholarly translations”.

      • I guess, Mr. Armstrong, you misunderstood me. In addition, you have assumed several things that I never said in my previous comment. The course was not designed to undermine the truthfulness of the historical accounts of the Old Testament. On the contrary, looking at the accounts from a literary perspective supports that all of the events in the Bible actually happened, not the opposite. (I wish I hadn’t taken the class so many years ago so that I could recall a specific example! Maybe I can find some of my old notes.) Details, tone, theme and presentation style of the stories in the Old Testament are not random, they each contribute to the value of the passage as a historical account and as part of a meaningful story of God’s love. The point of the class was not to value one of these over the other, rather the point was to learn to read the Bible in a new way, and perhaps take away something new each time.
        I’m surprised you seem so offended by the idea of reading the Bible in this way, Mr. Armstrong, as it does nothing if not showcase God’s love of creating something beautiful for human consumption. In this case, it was a beautifully written piece of truthful literature – the ultimate treatise on how much He loves us.
        Furthermore, it saddens me that this is an issue that brings so much anger to Christians. To me, this debate seems like an example of the “stumblingstone” Paul describes in Romans 9:31-33.

      • “Anti-God foolery”?!

        Whose side do you think I’m on, sir?

      • I know that was not its design, but there are no Bible colleges that I’m aware of that do not do this and produce people that do not believe that the King James is the word of God. My site’s resources are too eazy to use. How about watching a video?
        And wisdom and knowledge shall be the stability of thy times, and strength of salvation: the fear of the LORD is his treasure. (Isaiah 33:6)
        Most colleges report that the first 11 chapters of Genesis are myth (as did Wescott and Hort), even many Christian ones.
        Read the Bible in a new way? You mean read a version with 64,000 less words in a fresh and ditzy way, avoiding the pressure points and focusing on beauty and aplicable behaviour?
        Correction: the Bible is the only way we know that God loves us. He dose. But this being the only focus of New Evangelicles and nuts such as Rick Warren and all the rest of the sensitivity training crowd, I do not stress it for pleasing psycology pourposes. Too much councelling coming from the pulpits of Laodicean America, for sure.
        The issue is designed to be a stumbling stone, son! Jesus Christ is that stumbling mentioned (I Cor. 1:23). Bad stumbling stones are things like eating meat known to be offer unto idols (I Cor. 8:9-10). Unto the Greeks foolishness. You and Tony and Andrew really, actually think that it is foolish fro me to believe that the King James Bible of 1611 is the “given by inspiration”, perfectly translated word of God in English and that every modern English version is a bloody counterfiet and 100% from the pit of hell, thus deserving my wrath. Right? That’s why I do not want to address the issue in front of the atheist. I do not want him to draw back to perdition for the vehement disagreement among Christians over the modern versions.
        (Andrew, Christans fight among themselves all the time. Buddhists and Muslims and Mormons and Catholics don’t. The reason is that all those paths lead to hell and the Devil need only resist the one that saves men from it. It is Satan behind the new version issue and James White’s “scholar
        ship” [The LORD will cut off the man that doeth this, the master and the scholar, out of the tabernacles of Jacob, and him that offereth an offering unto the LORD of hosts.] Matt. 2:12)

        ANSWER: Does the Bible contradict itself? Wat about the charioteers?
        (This will show what your educators did to your mind lest you lie.)

        Anti-God Foolerery = Anti-Perfect Bible Foolery (Psalm 12:6-7, Is. 30:8)
        Heaven and earth shall pass away: but my words shall not pass away. (Matt. 13:31)

      • hmm, Christians fighting about Christianity. this has gotta be a first…

        Anthony, do you subscribe to a strict, literal interpretation of the Bible are you more into the “anti-God foolery” persuasion?

        (lol sorry, I just wanted to say “anti-God foolery” in a sentence…)

  6. “Christans fight among themselves all the time. Buddhists and Muslims and Mormons and Catholics don’t.”

    First, when people are angry, they tend to misspell words critical to the discussion, which tends to make them appear less intelligent. I wouldn’t normally point that out, but I feel it is relevant to this discussion. If you want to appear knowledgeable, cool-headed and reasonable, or both, please pay attention to your spell check.

    Second, to say that Christians fight all the time does not lend well to the argument that “they” will know us by our love for one another (John 13:35). That’s sorta like telling a young married couple, “Yeah, well, fighting is part of marriage…we fight all the time.” There’s something dysfunctional about that statement, because not all couples fight, even thought they may disagree.

    Third, to say that other religions do not fight is about the most absurd, ill-informed, ignorant, and slap-happy statement I have seen all day (and that is putting it nicely – in brotherly love). You have GOT to be kidding me, right? Catholics are at odds all the time over doctrinal issues. There are different sects of Mormons, some of which tried to kill the other. Good grief! And you think the Muslims don’t fight? They not only kill unbelievers, but they kill each other, too. Ask our atheist friend, Andrew. I am sure he saw it while over seas. People are people, no matter what they believe.

    Lastly, I resent the fact that you come to my blog and accuse me of “anti-God foolery”! Even the atheists would laugh at that accusation. What do you seriously think I have been doing on this site, and others, for the last 3+ years? To accuse me of being anti-God is ludicrous! It’s nonsense! I am NOT anti-KJV, but I am NOT KJV-only in my beliefs.

    So, if you want to continue ranting, go right ahead. I won’t stop you. But I will bet a dollar to a fresh, hot, Krispy Kreme donut that you are giving Andrew a worse impression of Christianity than I am. Why, because, if nothing else, a true believer shouldn’t have to go around being so angry at others who are/should be on the same team. For crying out loud, Andrew is on the opposite team, but I more respectful to him than you have been.

    I would hope that, from now on, the tone of conversation will change.

    • Well put, Mr. Baker.
      Mr. Armstrong, before I read Mr. Baker’s response, I was actually laughing to myself a bit because I think we would probably like each other if we met in person. I perused your website, and I will say that I admire your tenacity and dedication to your goals and I pray that many people will learn about Christ through you. I apologize for upsetting you with my comments, that was not my goal. I have enjoyed this debate, (as I suspect Mr. Marburger has) and while I know this is a somewhat rose-colored point of view I really believe that one thing that should set Christians apart is that we should be able to debate, however vehemently, while still loving one another. I grew up in a very conservative Church of Christ family, so I am certainly no stranger to ‘church fights’. I enjoy Mr. Baker’s website because I have seen the legalism that Church of Christ members are notorious for stifle the joy of Christ in some, while others can blossom within it. I certainly have some relatives who squirm a bit when they find out I attend a Baptist church now, but I know they never doubt my salvation or love me any less.

      And now a PLAYFUL jab that I just cannot resist:
      Personally, I hope my heavenly mansion is in the Catholic neighborhood because they are way more fun.

      p.s. – I’m a daughter, Mr. A, not a son 🙂
      p.p.s. – please don’t get incensed at my joke about heaven
      p.p.p.s. – I know God has a sense of humor, for example – penguins.

      • “Personally, I hope my heavenly mansion is in the Catholic neighborhood because they are way more fun.”

        Marrying into a Catholic family later this year. I can confirm they’re a lot of fun! 😉

      • OK. I guess this is for me. Hi. Sorry, the two people on the image confused me, Miss.
        Sure we’d be chummy. I’m that in person not in print.
        Thanks for visiting my site. Well, g-wizz, you did not upset me, not that I can remember anyway. I had answers (chapter, verse): no reason to be “upset”.
        Ha Haa! Yah, Mr. A. MaredBurger enjoyed the disgussion on my site, too. Until he lost and left, that is! 🙂
        Hey. Arguing over scripture happened when people still believed the Bible as their final authority and safe guard. Not so in disgussions like this which subvert hearers. Besides, the Bible has a very low view of debate.
        Do you want to know that “legalism” is: “You don’t ______, so you’re less than me or maybe you’re not even saved!” (no one “blossoms” when they are like this, though it can probably be dirt for something to grow out of)
        Do you want to know that it is not: “I need an every word Bible and I got it. You’ll never take it away and replace it with that piece of junk!” (That’s faith you can use for battle.)
        That’s good, Baptist was nice for a while before I became a Bible Believing Baptist.
        If you’re mansion is in the “Catholic neighborhood” in heaven, that’ll only be because you’ve landed in the .0001% of professing “Catholics” that were ever saved by grace through faith. (see the real RC’s in A Lamp In the Dark and The Invasion (Part !) by Mike Hoggard) They say they are Christians when they have been killing them for the last 1500 years.
        Also see:
        The Enemy (http://samgipp.com/av/av_gipp11.ra)

    • “Ask our atheist friend, Andrew. I am sure he saw it while over seas.”


      Probably our single biggest headache militarily speaking wasn’t Iraqi vs. US violence…it was Muslim sectarian violence. That is, Sunni vs. Shia. They fundamentally disagree on a tenet of Islam (namely the succession of Mohammed) and they’ve been butchering each other over it ever since. To claim that other religions do not fight among themselves is a level of ignorance I have not seen in any capacity in a long time. And the comment about the devil only needing to focus on Christianity and not the others. That’s…well…

    • You really don’t know what Andrew is like, but, I’ll admit, I did not know him until after here. You know, when you are dealing with an apostate Christian (Andrew) of a KJV hater/ripper (the owner o’ de site here) you really cannot help being a “little Christ” and say Woe unto you, ye blind guides!!!
      Sure, DUDE. But there are like 2 or three of each false religion not 50. Man, you saying that division in your church ain’t from hell?

      • KJV hater/ripper? Seriously?

      • Seriously. KJV hater. (see “The Spirit of Jezebel” by Mike Hoggard)
        Example: is I John 5:7 given by inspiration. If not you just said my KJV is wrong, thus a corrupted version of the “Bible” (I Peter 1:23). (This is your conclusion if you have faith in James White or what he stands for.)

      • Woody, as much as I disagreed with Andrew (who, incidentally, quit coming to my site because of my stance against practicing homosexuality), I was never hateful with him. You, on the other hand, have chosen to come to my blog and accuse me of hating the KJV and having a demonic spirit. That’s no way to be if you want to win a debate.

        I guess what offends me the most is that you are choosing to alienate brothers who put their lives on the line for Christ, who preach against sin, and suffer persecution for the sake of the Gospel.

      • First: You did not answer my question. Expected, actually.
        Second: YIKES! I thought Anne-drew was marrying straight! :}
        That’s nice that you weren’t “hatefull”. Actually he did not leave my site because I was “hateful”. He left because he flat lost.
        I did not sa you were posessed, but I think you may be right. (Actually, we all got us a devil! 😀 You just happen to have or believe one that hates authority in English.)
        Hey, who’s winning? Neither of us will but in post discussion views.
        “Alienate”? What does that mean?
        Yup, You’re being persecuted, all right. But not like the RC’s did (see “Final Authority” by Grady). What country in the Master’s field are you stationed in now?
        Q: You ever seen Benny the Hinn persecuted by anyone other than a Bible believer? Jess askn’.

      • Ok, so, when I did not go into much detail to answer your question about 1 John 5:7 there was a good reason: I had less than 5 minutes to load a school bus with a bunch of elementary students. Therefore, once again, I resent your arrogant and ill-informed accusations and challenges to my character. That, my sir, is what tends to “alienate” the very ones you might try to reach (alienate: to make unfriendly, hostile, or indifferent especially where attachment formerly existed; to isolate or estrange).

        Next, the fact that Andrew “lost” does not impress me, but the fact that he IS LOST saddens me.

        The devil you insinuate I have, one that “hates authority in English,” must also “hate authority” in other languages as well, correct? What, then, are the Romanian, French, Chinese, and Russian equivalents of the KJV?

        Regarding persecution, the Catholics persecuted Protestants, but Protestants also persecuted Baptists. Baptist like to “separate” from other Baptists and label them as infidels over the least differences. I’m a Baptist, so I’m familiar with persecution, even in America. I’ve been threatened, harassed, and shot at. My name has even been drug through the mud in the newspapers and on radio for standing true to God’s Word. Have I been imprisoned? Not yet, but it might not be long the way things are going.

        Also, are you even suggesting that I am on the same doctrinal level as that charlatan Benny Hinn? If so, well…I’ll reserve my indignation for later.

        Lastly, you asked about 1 John 5:7. You asked if I thought it was inspired. The problem is that you want to make one text that even Erasmus didn’t include in his first two editions to be the defining issue of my orthodoxy. Do I believe the Father, the Word (Jesus), and the Holy Ghost bear record in Heaven? Yes, I do. But when out of all the Greek manuscripts only 2, I believe, contain it, I won’t take a firm position. I will accept that John said it, however, because it is a truth that is confirmed in the whole of Scripture. That, sir, should not be a definer of one’s faith.

        Oh, and 20/20 (liberal news media) exposed Benny Hinn.

      • Well this should not take too long. (Paragraph/Paragraph)
        No, you did not mention I John 5:7 at all. That’s OK.
        “Ill-informed accusations…to my character”? I said you did not mention it. Most people would not because that shows what they think about my best friend (AV 1611).
        Now I’m arogant, too. Show me in the Bible where a Bible believer is a inherently arogant person. We are not and neither am I.

        Duh! and ditto. I told you why he left mine and that it was not arrogance, vitriol or anything like that.

        Since 1611, translations from it. See Gail Riplingers books “In Awe of Thy Word” and “Catholics Changing God’s Name” (not studies in semantics like NABV). Enjoy. (Availible from AVPublications.com and, boy, they need funds now.)


      • Translating the KJV into other languages and claiming that the translation of a translation is the equivalent of translating from an original (referring to the thousands if texts we have) is patently absurd. I know you won’t agree.

      • And, if you will notice, I DID NOT address 1 John 5:7 because of time constraints, which, incidentally, are upon me once again.

      • I got that you could not answer imediatly the first time, man.
        PS: “All scripture is given by inspiration of God” (II Tim. 3:16). You got a verse that says translations are ever inferior? Study “translate” “-tion” “-tions”, etc. in the Bible. If your KjV is given by inspiration (which you do not believe given you’re avoiding answering, or am i assuming), seems like it as a translation and other Bibles being translated from it would be just as fine and inspired (see the above verse). You were the one who wanted me to give you the KJV equivilent (God’s words) in other languages.
        You gonna street preach the infailible and lost forever originals and the best we have in unreadable Greek? Let me know who gets saved. You or I will never tell someone about errors of translation or conflation while showing them from the Bible how to be saved.
        I Got from 2-4 pm Thursday; I’m out for today…and tomorrow. See ya then. No questioning character of false accusations: Where’s your BOOK? I got mine. KJV 1611.

      • I highly doubt you use the original 1611. The verses you’ve quoted have reflected you use a revision.

      • Still a King James Bible 100%, buddy. A 1911 pistol doesn’t have to have been made in 1911. I could have been stamped out yesterday and have a laser sight on it. It’s still a 1911 pistol. Hey. I’m the only one quoting verses that I know of here. Jess sayn’.

        Where’s your perfect Bible 100% inerrent Bible, today. Who have you told on the street that your NIV/NASB/NKJV/NIrV/KJV/NLT is perfect to get them trusting it and get them saved?
        I’m out till Thur. We’ll pick this up then, I’m sure.
        So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. (Rom. 10:17)

      • I seek the truth, wherever it may be found. And what I have found is that the evidence suggests that the Johannine Comma is an intrusion, probably originally an explanatory gloss added in the margin of a Latin manuscript and mistakenly copied into the main text.

        My translation of 1 John 5.7-8 is simply thus: “For there are three that give witness: the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one in accord.” – As I believe that the evidence does not suggest that the full form of the verse – as the Vulgate reads “For there are three that give witness in heaven: the father, the word and the holy spirit; and these three are one. And there are three that give witness in the earth: the spirit, and the water, and the blood; and these three are one” – came from the hand of the writer.

      • I’ll address your assurtions about history and the Bible on Thurday.
        I n the mean time, I’ll allow the cite owner to answer you. I’m out.

      • Thank you for your comment. You may be correct in your assertion, but I am not a scholar on that level, even though I am the owner of this “cite.”

  7. I know there are many sincere TSC pastors and leaders who truly want their congregations to live in the freedom that Christ’s message brings.

    • I honesly do not know how this got sent to me but, here goes:
      What is “Christ’s message”? I thought that the truth is what makes us free. And, last time I checked John 17:17 Jesus said that “Thy word is truth.”
      I’d like the inerrent inspired copy of it, if you do not mind.
      I also did not know hiw much was going on here in the last few months.

  8. CONTINUED!!!:
    (I know you’ll get this, even though it is not directly to your comment.)
    Yah RC’s persecuted Protestants AFTER Luther. They were killing Bible believers since they started (see “A Lamp In the Dark). When I say persecuted I mean Killing, Looting, Raping, Tourture (and boy I could list some good ones), Ipersonating to apostocise, etc. Pal, I’m talkn’ spiritual and physical murder. Millions.
    In Philidelphia (the Church Age) god blessed “division” for sake of unity. (see “Are You In a Cult” by Bryan Denlinger)
    Shot at by another Baptist? Bible believer, no. Glad you made it through OK.
    Man alive! What do you do with that verbal plenary inspired NIV, NASB, NIrV, TEV, NKJV, NLT, NJB, or whatever. Which one is this God’s Word you are true to, exactly?

    I suggested nothing about you and Hinnnnn. I was asking an honest question, man. Good use of a KJV archaic word; If you want to fix my atitude or opinions, quote me verses. (any version)


  9. CONTINUED!!!! (s/s):
    I JOHN 5:7
    Cool. Is it inspiredddd?…..
    The King James has it as scipture, pal. Do you think it should be therrrrre?……
    Your “orthodizy” is not an issue to me. I asked to get you to tell me about how your individual opinions make you treat a 400 year old “Anglican” translation. Result: poorly.
    I knew you believe in the Trinity. It doesn’t matter to me if you didn’t believe in Erasmus!
    The Greek MSS, eh? You’re getting your info from White, aren’t ya? He doesn’t care about M MSS. He rejects Mark 16:9-20 just like 2 MSS did (Aleph and B)!
    What he for got to tell you: he knows the story he spreads about Erasmus’ “bet” with Lee was faked in 1804 (?).
    Also: the oldest MSS without it is Aleph (oldest copy of a Greek I John). The oldest undisputed citation of it is from 350 AD. Aleph was written in 350 AD, too.
    A whole verse can falll from the “Greek MSS tradition” and the pure Bible preserved in languages people are actually using at the same time. (see KJVToday.com; “Hazardous Materails: Greek and Hebrew Study Dangers” and “Witch Bible? You Be the Judge (Part 3)” by Mike Hoggard [YouTube.com]).

    If you don’t preach it (“Preach the Word”), why do you believe it?
    If parts of the Apocrypha placate what you’ve been taught (as I have been, as well, and believe), are they inspired, too?
    Your faith (correct me): “I believe the book I hold in my hand is not necessarily God’s inerrent word, though it is better than an NIV some times. They sill all do, really. Oh, not those stupidly liberal ones though! I’ll fight “Word On the Street” right along with James White! But I’m not going to be intollerant about it. Man, those people I know that think one translation is inspited are nuts.”

    Q: Am I Wrong? is your KJV 100% perfect, though you may not be able to prove it yet? If so, why? And what’s wrong with the rest of them?

    (On the Hinnnnnn: I mean for what he believes. Persecuted, not exposed (adultury). Like a Catholic a Wiccan. Any takers beside some one who refutes people with Bible verses?)

    • All of your arguments rest on the proposition that the KJV is actually inspired. You believe, whether you state it or not, that the translators are on the same level as the original authors, such as Paul, John, and even Moses. The scripture that was given by inspiration of God (2 Tim 3:16) was given to “holy men…as they were moved by the Holy Ghost” (2 Pet 1:21), not British theologians and translators.

      Speaking of the 1611, does yours include the Apocrypha? Mine does. Yes, the translators of the original 1611 included the fact that Tobit “made an ende of praising God” (Tobit 13:1) and the story of Bel and the Dragon. Whether these words were inspired, or not, I wonder if the “1611” you claim to use includes them. In other words, as you put it, does your 1911 Colt which was made at a later date include ALL the parts of the original? If not, what changed? I find it ironic that in your comment you asked me: “If parts of the Apocrypha placate what you’ve been taught (as I have been, as well, and believe), are they inspired, too?” Well? I don’t know. I wonder why the ORIGINAL 1611 included the Apocrypha?

      By the way, speaking of translations, it is interesting to note what the Translators said in “To the Reader” (a forward and explanation for the KJV). In the 3rd paragraph from the end they say: “Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures…They that are wise, had rather haue their judgmements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be the other.”

      Again, the way you belittle my position (as per your attempt to put words in my mouth in the “Your faith (correct me)” paragraph) is insulting.

      For the record, nowhere in my above comment did I reference White with regards to Erasmus; I was referencing the writings of Neil R. Lightfoot, Ph.D.

      Lastly, and I don’t care to argue this any more (and that does not mean I lose, but that I have other things on which to spend my writing time), the idea that a translation of a translation is better than a translation from the original languages goes against all common sense. NO translation is a complete word-for-word translation. Some words don’t translate exactly, so an equivalent meaning has to be found. Syntax has to be taken into account. Even the King James Version adds words that were not in the originals in order to clarify (words in italics). How much more difficult or suspect, then, would a translation from a translation be? That would mean you would have to translate from one culture to another, then that culture to another. Something inevitably will be lost in translation, and, keeping in mind that you propose it was only the KJV that was inspired, the new translations must not be.

      Woody, I am going to be very straight with you. Your attacks are getting boring to me. Your attitude, which is getting on my nerves, does not come across as a “Bible believer,” but patronizing. And on top of that, for someone who is supposed to carry the day for the King’s English, your poor use of grammar, spelling, and an overuse of lettttteeeerrrrrrsssss does not help your arguments. If you want to talk about some other subject, then feel free. However, I am not willing to continue going round and round on this. I’m done.

      • I’m not a scholar either, pal. You’re buisy, me too.
        The lab is crouded today. I’ll answer fully tomorrow and you can tell me if you’re backing out because you do not believe in a 100% perfect English Bible you can hold in your hand and read/preach or not. If not, that’s cool.
        Sorry ’bout de proofreedn’, too. I know theeeeeeyyyyyy don’t help facts. It’s fun to write that way. 🙂
        We’ll see ya and raise ya. 😀

      • I don’t think the KJV is inspired. I think the Bible is and that the KJV is the 100% Bible for English speakers today. I would ask you where is your Acts 2 copy. More on that later.

        Yes, the 1611 had the Apocrypha between the Testaments and there’s a good reason why it was there and not scattered in the text like the RCs’ bible, Siniaticus and Vaticanus have it. The 1911 Colt illustration is obsolete for your point, as it obviously has zilch to do with the biblical text of the AV 1611. There were numerous illustrations, charts and notes in the 1611 edition that are not in mine, but that’s fine because I’m not trying to justify everything that was between its dusty covers. The KJTT included the Apocrypha for history’s sake not for any fear of the RCs, in fact the Catholics hated and derided them for their placing it between the OT and NT and not in the text as inspired scripture and still hate the KJV for that to this day. The KJTT listed seven reasons why they put it in its place (a few reasons were: they not written in Hebrew [Romans 3:2], they contradict plain scripture and were never accepted by the Jewish church) and there is no more loss in a KJV than if mine were missing a concise concordance or expository notes. None of that extra stuff was ever “given by inspiration”. By the way, it may help you to know that “given by inspiration” is “All scripture”, including the copy Timothy had in lap (II Tim 3:15). This includes translations, seeing that “inspiration” does not mean “God breathed” but rather the giving of understanding by the Holy Ghost (Job 32:8, the only other time the word is used in God’s Book). You should be checking your cross-references not your systematic theology text book (see also: http://playmp3.sa-media.com/media/72211959593/72211959593.mp3) My Colt still fires without a miss, even though it is not as heavy as it was in 1611.

        It may be “INTERESTING to note what the Translators said”, but I’ve already read their profession and don’t care what they said. It clearly doesn’t matter what their personal opinions were, only the purified product does: The Holy Bible, you know, God’s words (not His ideas and nuances, more later). Can you imagine what people would have done to them if they claimed to have dictated for God like Ellen White? It is even more interesting to note what they said at the end of your quote: “…when it may be the other.” It was their scholarly opinion and their God led translation that they put in the text, but they, like Paul who said, “and I think also that I have the Spirit of God.” (I Cor 7:40), had their doubts, so they made their next best available in the margin. So scratch out the idea that I thought they were infallible like White should have done on page 58 of his silly booklet, “The King James Only Controversy”. He also said that my position is “anti-freedom” (p. 151). No, James, I’m free to win souls and ignore you with an unquestionable Bible, not a slave to the dictums of “scholarship”. And I don’t make up these facts as I go.

        Which brings me to my next, your last, point. If “[n]o translation is a complete word-for-word translation”, then what happened when the New Testament writers translated Old Testament verses? Looks to me like that Holy Ghost translated it just how he wanted then, didn’t He or was GOD’S translation “inaccurate” or not “truly the original”? Why not, then, in 1611 into English? Besides that, how ‘bout where yer old “The GREEK” translates from an inspired author that wrote in Celtic (as with Colossians, who exclusively spoke Celtic when Paul wrote to them? Getting kinda awkward, isn’t it.? Check this doosy out! What happened when Luke quotes Paul in Acts 22 in Greek (writing to Theophilus) when EVERYTHING Paul said in was spoken in Hebrew? Looks like the Holy Ghost of God doesn’t have any quarrels with languages He created himself in Genesis 11. [I believe it was the correct epistle in sentence 5 ; see “In Awe of Thy Word” for more.] You may have thought you waved the perfect Bible in your language off by calling it impossible. You did not.

        For the hope which is laid up for you in heaven, whereof ye heard before in the word of the truth of the gospel; Which is come unto you, as it is in ALL THE WORLD; and bringeth forth fruit, as it doth also in you, since the day ye heard of it, and knew the grace of God in truth: (Col. 1:5-6)

        Romans 16:26 But NOW is made manifest, and by THE SCRIPTURES of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known TO ALL NATIONS for the obedience of faith:

        So, it looks like I don’t need to know every subtle cultural nuance to have a Bible. Besides, God promised to preserve His words not some ideas behind what we think they may have meant at one point. God said:
        And the LORD answered me, and said, Write the vision, and MAKE IT PLAIN upon tables, that he may run that readeth it. (Hab. 2:2) That’s God’s version of KISS: Keep It Simple, Stupid!
        Is there a perfect BIBLE anywhere on earth today? Greek, Hebrew? I don’t care.
        Why then didn’t God EVER say, “Thou shalt learn Greek to know the scriptures!”? Or how ‘bout:
        “Boy, Habakkuk, I hope you can word this culturally relevant and beautifully enough so people will listen to what I say. Do try hard!”
        I don’t see a verse in the Bible where God said anything about being limited to any “inspired” dead language or where he said there were secret meanings to words. That’s what makes someone a member of the Scholarship Onlyism Cult. A spiritual slave to modern “scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!” (Matt. 23:27)
        Have a great time finding an excuse to call your bible “holy”or “God’s word” on the street. The pressure is on.
        The heart of the righteous studieth to answer but the mouth of the wicked poureth out evil things. (Proverbs 15:28)
        Whoso despiseth the word shall be destroyed: but he that feareth the commandment shall be rewarded. (Proverbs 13:13)
        But he giveth more grace. Wherefore he saith, God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble. (James 4:6)
        Notwithstanding I have a few things against thee, because thou sufferest that woman Jezebel, which calleth herself a prophetess, to teach and to seduce my servants to commit fornication, and to eat things sacrificed unto idols. (Revelation 2:20; see also my previous comments)
        If you, viewer, have any questions after reading this please e-mail me at: drwoody1128@gmail.com
        Or visit my website: RYFTKOHIAH.WordPress.com

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.