"Bible Correctors" Without A Bible
A Newspaper Debate Between A Bible Believer And A Bible Corrector
Debate Correspondence #III
Below is my Third Open Letter To Mr. H, Replying To His Answers
[I start to lay into him a little harder]
I have to hand it to you, Mr. H, you have publicly admitted something others who believe as you are reluctant to admit; that is, you don’t have a pure Bible, a Bible you can completely trust. When we asked you last week if you believe God’s word exits on earth you said “I sure wish it did,” implying to you it doesn’t exist. What a tragedy. A preacher of the word with no word to preach! He has no tangible final authority to consult, no inerrant word of God to appeal to, yet he tells others he is preaching the very words of God! And what is even more pitiful? He is not content having no Bible himself but spends his time trying to convince others who believe their Bible (KJB) to join him in his unbelief! What a sorry business to be in.
Tell us, Mr. H, you claim a person has to have a knowledge of “Hebrew and Greek” to “show the error” in a translation. Supposing this is true, when did you acquire such a proficient knowledge of these languages? Enough knowledge to “correct” the English Scriptures? If you expect us to believe you over what our Bible says, we want to know your credentials. Surely you wouldn’t trust the research of others in mere English language Hebrew and Greek dictionaries (like Strongs, Vines, etc.) after telling us one should “Never, never trust the research of other men.” Why that would be hypocritical. You apparently feel your knowledge of these languages is superior to that of the 48 KJ translators or even the NLT translators since you believe you can find and “correct” their errors. This is quite a claim, and it is up to your readers to decide whether to trust you or their Bible.
Furthermore, you continue to mislead your readers by stating the “original manuscripts” still exist. You said last week I should “check the Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts...” How can I? They don’t exist! Give me the name of one credible scholar that believes even a fragment of one page exists! “Original” means “first; earliest,” and the originals of the Bible manuscripts have been missing for nearly 2000 years. Why do you emphasize something God places no emphasis on? He let the originals disappear centuries ago. He is able to preserve His word without them. All the manuscripts left today are copies, not originals, and some of them vary greatly in content. There are over 40 different compiled Greek text New Testaments. You are deceiving your readers by suggesting you have access to the “originals.”
According to your answer last week, you don’t believe God’s pure word can even be found in the “Greek manuscript” you are using. You don’t even believe it is without error. Then how can you “correct” a translation you believe in error with a Greek text you believe contains errors? What is your standard, your heart-felt opinion?
You further claim no Bible can be “inspired and inerrant” because they were translated by “mere men.” If God used “mere men” to author His pure word, why can’t He use them to preserve it, especially after He promised to do so? Also, why couldn’t He use men to translate His word into another language. My God understands English as well as Greek. It is amazing you believe the depravity of man is greater than the promises of God (Romans 5:20).
You say you are “forced” to carry and preach from a KJB because of the “poisoned minds” of the people you preach to. Did the Holy Spirit lead you to compromise your convictions and tickle the ears of your congregation by giving them what they want to hear? Would Christ have preached from a Bible He believed to be corrupt and inferior just to please His hearers (Luke 4:17-32)? Your actions don’t match your words. Others who have read your reply have told me you have an ethical problem in this regard, and I agree.
Perhaps you have it backwards, Mr. H. Maybe your congregation wants to hear the KJB because the Holy Spirit tells them it IS the pure word of God. This would leave you being the one with the “poisoned mind.”
It is interesting how you quote Scripture to tell people they don’t need a Bible. You quote John 14:26 and 1 John 2:27 to “prove” your claim. The truth is the Holy Spirit is the author of the Scriptures (2 Timothy 3:16), and both He and the Scriptures are necessary for a believer to be saved and grow (Romans 10:17; John 17:17; 1 Peter 2:2). How is the Holy Spirit to bring “all things to...remembrance” Christ said if a person has never heard what Christ said? To remember Christ’s word one must have read or heard it previously, and that information can only come from the Scriptures.
Since you don’t have a Bible you can trust, you claim you have “learned to trust the word on [your] heart.” Trusting one’s heart like this is very dangerous when he doesn’t have a Bible to judge it by. Jeremiah 17:9 says, “ The heart is deceitful above all things, and desperately wicked...” and Proverbs 28:26 says, “He that trusteth in his own heart is a fool.” The simple fact is the Holy Spirit doesn’t work contrary to His written word. Only after being both exposed to His word and convicted by the Holy Spirit can a person “believe in thine heart” and be saved (Romans 10:9-10). God’s word can’t be understood without the Holy Spirit (1 Cor. 2:14), and one cannot “try the spirits” without His word (1 John 4:1).
You misrepresented us in your column last week. We clearly said in our first letter there was no textual difference between the editions of the KJB except fortypographical errors. Yet when you quote us you conveniently leave out our exception. There are roughly 400 textual variations between the 1611 and the present 1769 edition, and ALL of them are “typos.” That is around one typo every three pages. Most of the typos are changed word order or word tense, and a very few are actual word differences like “good” for “God.” It is easy to understand how a 17th century typesetter (who set each letter by hand) could mistake “good” for “God.” The only difference is an extra “o” and an uppercase “G.” This was not a mistranslation but a simple oversight. This change, as most of the others, was obvious to the readers of the 1611 edition and it was corrected at a later printing. The 1769 edition, which is the last and present edition of the KJB, the edition you call a “modern translation” (not many would call something 228 years old “modern”), corrected the last of the typos and updated the spelling. But even the 1769 edition Bibles printed recently have a few typos in them, usually a misspelled word.
Finally, though there is much more we could say, what if we are wrong and the KJB is not the pure word of God in English. The most we can be judged for is believing the Bible God has given us and saved us through TOO MUCH. But what if you are wrong, Mr. H, and the KJB is God’s Final authority in English, you could be judged for faithlessness, infidelity, and for sowing unbelief! We choose the former position rather than the latter, and apparently many of your “mind poisoned” hearers choose the same.
Timothy S. Morton
This Is Mr. H's Reply To My Above Letter
As for your first paragraph, Mr. Morton, as you have seen for yourself, I tell the truth. You stated here in this week's rebuttal, that you asked me if I believed God's word exists on earth, then you tried to infer that I had said that I did not have a Bible. Please read my CHRIST CENTERED MESSAGES with a heart that is willing to follow the leading of the Holy Spirit, and you will see that I do believe I have a Bible. If you would have asked me that question I would have answered, yes. Then I would have said that I thank God for my Bible! What you asked me was, "Do you believe God's inerrant, infallible, pure, written word exists on earth today in tangible form? Now the only correct answer to that question is the one I gave, "I sure wish it did."
Mr. Morton, let me explain my position, Jesus is "The Word of God." and he is inerrant infallible, and pure. Our written versions are similar to portraits of this true "Word," as they were sketched by translators with a mind which favored their own self image, the original 1611 KJB has lots of error recorded in it, but the newer NLT 1996 edition, the newest of all the translations,has that error removed, so far I haven't found the first error in the NLT Holy Bible, but I am sure since it too is translated by man I could possibly find some.
The translators who revised the many editions of the KJB were only removing man's error, they were not changing God's Word. You should praise the Lord along with my other Chronicle readers, when you, see God's true portrait portrayed the way it is in the NLT edition of the Holy Bible, an edition which includes not only the truth restoring work of the KJ translators of old who were open minded enough to correct their own error, but also the work of the 1996 translators who had a desire to see the perfect Jesus portrayed for the lost world to see. I strive to present the beautiful perfect image of Jesus Christ (the true Word of God) in my Christ centered messages these messages are given to center our attention up on "JESUS."
Mr. Morton, make sure that you see, and believe, that the NLT 1996 edition of the Holy Bible is just that, a revision of the same word of God that is in the many revised KJ Bibles, there is only one difference, the NLT edition has been translated and revised so that it can be easily read and understood by people who speak easy to understand 1996 words. We don't read a different message, our Bible's portray the same true "Word." Mr. Morton, why don't you try letting the NLT version of God's Word read you sometime! I tried it, and I like it. I was once a KJ only man myself, but now I let God's light shine through the revised KJB, plus the Young's concordance which I use to remove its remaining error, and the NLT 1996 edition Holy bible.
As for your remarks in paragraph two. I will use these remarks to show you how to use a concordance to define the Greek and Hebrew, and you too can uncover KJ error. A Bible concordance is similar to an English dictionary, the difference is a dictionary gives us the meaning of an English word, and a concordance takes a Greek or Hebrew word and gives us only the appropriate English word with the same meaning. We will take a 1611 KJ mistranslated word, and check to see if the error correcting revised KJ word is correctly translated. In Deut. 11:30 the 1611 says, "Which dwell in the champion over against Gilgal," now the revised KJB says, "Which - dwell in the Champaign over against Gilgal." Mr. Morton, these are two different words, and we will see that they have different meanings in our English language. "Champion" in our English means, 'Holding superiority or first prize." Now Champaign in our English means, "A flat open country." In the Young's concordance we find that the Hebrew word for "Charnpaign" is arabah, which means in our English: "Plain, waste, desert." The 1611 translators were wrong and the error correcting KJ translators were right! Mr. Morton, anyone can plainly see why we should not trust so-called research by other men, your source was definitely wrong. There is lots of error in the 1611 KJB, and your unreliable source said there was none. Mr. Morton, as for my credentials - I present you the Holy Spirit!
Mr. Morton, one could not use a 1611 KJB today in conjunction with a Bible concordance and English dictionary, because there are obsolete words within its covers, words which are not in any Bible concordance or English dictionary, but one can definitely use a revised, KJB, the one most people read today, the one the translators of old removed only part of the error from, but he, or she, definitely needs a concordance to correct this remaining error. A Bible concordance contains every word, found in the revised KJB, but it does not contain the obsolete words that still remain in the 1611 KJB, and neither does the English dictionary. One can definitely use the NLT 1996 edition of the Holy Bible without a concordance or dictionary because 1996 translators have already revised the words found within the newer revised KJB that needed correcting.
Every portion of Scripture found within the NLT 1996 edition is fully translated into our modern day English, Scripture which projects God's full meaning in easy to understand 1996 words, or in other words these translators have done the translation work for us. The only benefit I can see for owning a 1611 KJB today, is to show KJ worshippers its error, so that they too can turn to Jesus the only inerrant Word as portrayed clearly in the NLT Holy Bible. Remember giving required allegiance or worship to a man's version of God will not save, only the true Word Jesus saves! Amen!
Mr. Morton, I read my revised Bible, including the revised KJB, and I always tell people the truth as it is in Jesus! It's perfectly all right to read a revised KJB as long as one has a concordance and dictionary at hand to correct its remaining error like I always do, but if one doesn't use these two books in conjunction with that Bible, he or she definitely needs a NLT 1996 edition. Mr. Morton, because of man's uncorrected error, and since there is no Bible concordance containing all of its obsolete words to reveal this error, one can clearly see that there is not one preacher on earth who could use a 1611 KJB when preaching to God's people. Mr. Morton make sure you get this: the Bible concordances today do not contain all the words of the 1611 KJB, but only the words of the revised KJB.
Mr. Morton, I truly believe that people are free through the leading of the Holy Spirit to find the true Word of God, why should we grace preacher's allow an error ridden 1611 KJ Bible, with all its obsolete words, punctuation error which changes God's original meaning, and all of its misused words, to be put in the way of people getting to Jesus to be saved. We ministers should want the inerrant true image of Jesus portrayed openly for all to see! KJ only preachers don't use the out dated error ridden KJB themselves, so why are they allowed to force others to give their allegiance (required worship) to it. That's just not Christianity! No that's only law religion, the grace killer.
Mr. Morton, you KJ only preachers proclaim that the KJB is the inerrant authorized Bible for today, when your people, and you, use one of the many revised KJ Bibles. Or in other words, you openly use a translated and revised Bible and tell others its wrong. Now read for yourself Romans 2:17-24, and you will see that God has a message for you people who are under the law.
Chronicle friends, please keep this week's rebuttal from Mr. Morton on hand, because next week I will continue to answer his untrue statements.
Debate Correspondence #IV