Debate Correspondence #II
Dear Mr. H:
You state in response to my open letter you believe we are misunderstanding your position on the Bible, but what is one supposed to think when you criticize and attack his King James Bible by saying it contains errors and mistranslations? I believe we and many of your readers understand your criticism better than you give us credit for.
You still insist there is a textual difference between the 1611 edition and later editions of the KJB after we stated how research has proven otherwise, how 1611 reprints, which are still available, can be compared with the current 1769 edition, and how there is no difference in the hearing of one edition read while following along with another. You did not address these issues in your rebuttal, neither did you give any examples of alleged textual differences. Instead, you incriminated yourself further by claiming the current 1769 edition is a “modern translation of the old 1611 Bible.” How can one “translate” from English to English, Mr. H? The basic meaning of “translate” as relating to Bible translations is to “put into the words of a different language.” By this definition English cannot be translated into English. The later editions of the KJB cannot even be called a true revision of the 1611 edition, let alone a translation.
Correct me if I’m wrong, but from reading your rebuttal I got the impression you didn’t believe any Bible was God’s pure word. You say the Lord Jesus Christ is “the Word” and He is in a sense (John 1:1), but Christ Himself said, “the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (John 6:63). Christ is not referring to Himself here, He is speaking of thespoken and written word of God. So to receive spirit and life one must hear God’s words (Rom. 10:17) either verbally or by reading. Christ also said, being ashamed of his WORDS (His spoken and now written words) was the same as being ashamed of Him (Mark 8:38). In light of this, Mr. Mr. H, I believe you need to be honest with your readers and answer these two questions: 1). Do you believe God’s inerrant, infallible, pure, written word exists on earth today in tangible form? 2.) If so, what and where is it, and if not, why not? These are very simple and reasonable questions that any preacher of the gospel should be able to easily answer. Are not preachers commanded to “preach the word” (2 Tim. 4:2)? What is the word you preach? What is your final authority?
You say you are taught “totally” by the Holy Spirit, but the Bible says there are other spirits who imitate the Holy Spirit thus all spirits are to be tried (1 John 4:1). What is your standard for trying them? Do you just trust your “feeling” of what you believe to be the Holy Spirit, or do you “search the scriptures” as Christ commanded? If you do search them, what scriptures do you search? How did you even learn there is a Jesus Christ and Holy Spirit apart from the Scriptures? Your readers deserve to know. Furthermore, if you continue to try to destroy other people’s confidence in their KJB, it is only ethical you tell what is your infallible basis for correction.
You say one should not trust “leather and paper.” I suppose you mean one should not trust any Bible. One shouldn’t trust such inanimate things as leather or paper in themselves, but we do trust in the living words of the Living God which can be found on leather or paper. Christ Himself read (Luke 4:17), studied (Luke 4:16), taught from (Luke 24:27), and commanded others to study (John 5:39) these words, and they were found even then on “leather and paper.” While you caution your readers not to trust God’s words found on “leather and paper,” Christ says one is to trust these words with his very life (Matt. 4:4)! Regardless of what you claim, no one could ever know the truth about God, Christ, and salvation apart from the Scriptures (John 5:39; Romans 10:17). They are God’s means of revealing Himself to mankind.
Also, Mr. H, you should inform your readers the “original manuscripts” you often refer to in your column DO NOT EXIST! The original writings of Moses, David, Paul, John, etc. have not existed for nearly 2000 years so any appeals you make to them are useless because they are not available to be checked for content. You said “God inspired men to write the original manuscripts.” Fine, but what does that mean since the original manuscripts no longer exist? Do we have an error free Bible today? I do, but you talk like you don’t.
Our position is clear. We believe God gave man his pure word (2 Tim. 3:16), God promised to preserve His word for man in all its purity, forever (Psalm 12:6-7), and the Authorized King James Version of 1611 (any edition) is this pure, preserved word in English. We do not trust in man’s ability to provide us a Bible through research and “scholarship” (though God can use man’s ability); we trust in God’s promises to preserve His word for every generation, and the KJB is a result of God’s preservation. One of the attributes that accounts for the KJB’s superiority is the preeminent place it gives to the Lord Jesus Christ. One example is it clearly exalts Christ in 1 Timothy 3:16 as “God manifest in the flesh.” Does your NLT say that in this passage? Then how can you say in it “God’s deity is restored” ? This is probably the clearest reference to Christ’s deity in all the Scriptures and it is missing in the NLT.
Also, there is a very obvious inconsistency in your rebuttal. After spending weeks “correcting” the KJB with your NLT, you say you “carry and preach out of” a “King James Bible” “every week”! If this is not inconsistent I don’t know what is. If you think the NLT is so much better than the KJB, why don’t you preach out of it? Don’t your people deserve the “best” translation?
Finally, Mr. H, if you have received the Lord Jesus Christ as your salvation, I count you as a brother in Christ, but I could no longer endure your unsubstantiated and unproved charges against my KJB without replying. God is able to preserve His word, as He promised, in the manner He wants His people to have it, and we believe the KJB is His pure word in English. But, sir, your readers deserve to know exactly where YOU stand! Please answer the two simple questions above so everyone will know.
In His Grace
Timothy S. Morton
[This was also in the same edition of the paper]
I still believe Mr. Timothy S. Morton is misunderstanding my position or in fact I know he is misunderstanding this issue. Mr. Morton speaks as if the 1611 King James Bible was the first and only Bible, but Friends, that is not so. I will cover this thoroughly in future issues.
Mr. Morton still insists that there is no textual difference between
the 1611 edition and later editions. Mr. Morton seems to claim only
one of the later editions. He constantly refers to a 1769 edition. why
this date? I'm not sure because there were several revisions published
to correct error in the 1611 King James Bible.
Friends, Mr. Morton insists again this week that, "There is no difference in the hearing of one edition read while following along in another. Friends, please read this week's Christ Centered Message and you will see where the 1611 King James translators left God out all together. But, thank God, you will also see where all later versions of King James Bible correct this obvious error by putting God back into the Bible. Friends, I will show you more in later issues.
Mr. Morton, try to read the 1611 yourself and compare it to the modern version of the King James Bibles and I am sure you will change your mind. Never, never trust the research of other men. If you are going to write in the Chronicle, please check these things out yourself. Please! You are leading people astray! I promise all of your attacks where you deny that Jesus is the only Word of God will be answered in weeks to come.
Mr. Morton, to answer why I am forced to carry and preach out of a King James Bible each week is easy to answer. Religious law based denominations have poisoned the minds of people so much that the only thing that they will listen to is the King James Bible; but, Friend, I always go back to the Hebrew and Greek to show the error. Then I sometimes read the New Living Translation to them. Remember, The NLT was only issued in 1996, and I just bought my copy recently.
Mr. Morton, to answer your first question: 1. "Do you believe God's inerrant, infallible, pure, written word exists on earth today in tangible form?" Friend, I sure wish it did, in fact if it did it would make my work as a Pastor and writer a lot easier. I have never seen a pastor or preacher who didn't have to reference back to the Hebrew and Greek to prepare a sermon in English that people of 1997 can relate to. If you have found that perfect man's translation of God's original word I wish you would show me a copy. Friend, you will see in weeks to come that the Bible you claim to be inerrant contains man's error. Yes, Friend, it does! "What ever is perfect under the sun."
To answer your second question, "If so what and where is it, if not, why not?" Friend, try being led by the Holy Spirit as you read the only written word we have. Check the Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts written based on the word handed down by our ancestors before us. Your 1611 King James Bible is truly not the perfect inerrant word of God, and neither is the NLT, but you will see in week's to come that the NLT with 1996 English language experts translating comes closer to all the available manuscripts of old, only because they use the English words we use today and not old English. Friend, the NLT is no more inspired and inerrant the King James Bible. Both were translated by mere man. Mr. Morton, I have learned to trust the word on my heart, God does the best job of all! Amen! Praise His Holy name!
Here's how God (Jesus) put it in your newer version King James Bible. He agrees with me when He says in John 14:26, "But the comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you." Also, in 1 John 2:27, "But the anointing which ye have received of him in you, and ye need not that any man teach you: but as the same anointing teacheth you of all things. and is truth and is no lie. and even as it hath taught you, ye shall abide in him." Now, I know this is old English language but to hear this in 1996 language, let's turn to the NLT Edition. "But you have received the Holy Spirit, and he lives within you, so you don't need anyone to teach you what is true. For the Spirit teaches you all things, and what he teaches is true - it is not a lie. So continue in what he has taught you, and continue to live in Christ."
If, Mr. Morton is right in what he is saying, and if what God just said in these verses is a lie; I just wonder what people before 1611 did when they needed to know God's word. I guess the only true people of God are numbered with a number on their forehead- 1611 KJV!
[He had twice as much space as I did, his reply and column.]
Last week 'in his open letter to me, Timothy S. Morton said that the text was not changed over the years, in the many different revision of the so-called error free 1611 King James Bible. Morton also said "If one would read a 1611 edition KJB aloud anyone could follow along with an later edition and hear no difference between them..." Was he right? No! Today I will give you one of the many examples that I will be giving you to illustrate why the 1611 KJ Bible needed the many error correcting revisions that were published over the years.
KJ translators who did the editing of the original 1611 Bible were open minded people, and apparently realized that only the original manuscripts were inspired of God. Some of the error correctors were possibly the same translators who translated the original 1611 Bible, the ones who wrote the open letter to the readers of the 1611 .KJ Bible, and included this letter to be a part of the original 1611 Bible. In this letter these translators admitted that their 1611 translation had error, and went on to say, "What ever is perfect under the sun." KJ worshippers today say the 1611 KJ Bible is error free but the original translators of that same Bible disagree with them, and so do I, and friends, so will you after today. you will clearly see for yourself that entirely different words are used in the 1611 KJV, and you will also plainly see that one could not read the 1611 KJV aloud and follow it word for word in a newer edition, and see no difference. No way friends.
Psalms LXIX: 32 in the original 1611 KJ Bible wrongly says, "The humble shall see this, and be glad, and your heart shall hue that seek good.” Friends, this sounds like salvation by good works to me. The 1611 translators made an out right translation error here, but the open minded error correctors of the 1617 KJ Bible corrected this translation error. Friends, revision was needed to correct the many errors of the 1611 KJ Bible, and revision is especially needed to correct the remaining error which still remains in the revised KJ Bible used today.
I thank God that I carry a newer version KJ Bible that has at least part of the error corrected. Psalms 69:32 in my newer version KJ Bible, the same one most of you carry today says, "The humble shall see this, and be glad, and your heart shall live that seek God.
Friends, as you can plainly see this is definitely a wrong 1611 KJ translation, and not only a typesetter's mistake.
Please notice the word "good" in the 1611 verse. The 1611 KJ translators used a lower case g when typing this word. Now look at the word "God" in the newer version. The 1617 translators used an upper case G, just like they used in every other place God was mentioned in their revised KJ Bible. Even the 1611 translators always used an upper case 0 when referring to God: this is proof that they truly meant to say good, and not God. There was a very obvious difference here. I could hear a different word read in the 1611 Bible than what I was reading in my newer revised version KJB, and so could you friends.
Last week you dear Christ loving people were wrongly told by a KJ worshipper that the New Living Translation of the Holy Bible, "Destroys many key passages that refer to the deity of Christ." But you can plainly see for yourself that the translators of the original 1611 KJ Bible were truly the ones who clearly left God out of this important passage. Now listen as God is lifted up, and restored totally by the NLT translators. Even the "this" of this same KJ verse is identified as being God Himself by the 1996 translators. Now listen and praise the Lord! "the humble will see their GOD at work and be glad. Let all who see God's help live in joy." Now that's pure gospel. Amen! I thank God for the NLT 1996 translators who have restored the deity of Christ.
|Shortly after this second series of letters were published, I
received an "anonymous" phone call from someone wanting to know
why I was causing so much trouble with my letters to Mr. H. I
said, "I didn't know I was,...he was the one who started it by
ridiculing Bible believers by name in the paper." I further
said, "He should not be surprised that someone may challenge
some of his claims." After answering her many questions, I
finally asked her who she was, she wouldn't tell me. I asked if
she went to his church. She said, "I don't go to that church."
After a couple more questions she "hung up" on me.
My wife [she is pretty quick-minded] immediately dialed *69 on the phone hoping the number of the last caller would come up. It did, and guess whose it was? Your right, the "insurance man's!" My wife called the number and very kindly asked his wife why she wouldn't identify herself and then "hung up" on me. Startled that her stealth had been uncovered, she "hung up" on my wife. These are the kind of people one has to deal with.