Archive for February, 2013

By Will Kinney

The Fickle Nature of the “Science” of Textual Criticism

Revelation 13:10 “He that LEADETH into captivity, SHALL GO INTO CAPTIVITY; HE THAT KILLETH WITH THE SWORD, must be killed with the sword.”

The Majority text actually reads: “If any HAS CAPTIVITY, HE GOES. IF ANY BY SWORD, he must be killed.” The Majority omits the verb “leadeth” and omits “into captivity”. Then it also omits “He that killeth with the sword”. No Bible version follows the Majority text here.

Another instance of fickle change and disagreement among the modern versions is found in Revelation 13:10. There we read: “…HE THAT KILLETH with the sword must be killed with the sword…” The phrase: “He that killeth” is in the active voice, that is, he is the one doing the killing. This is the reading found in the Textus Receptus, Sinaiticus and manuscript C. It also USED to read this way in the previous Westcott-Hort, Nestle-Aland Greek texts.

The Nestle-Aland, UBS (United Bible Society) texts, upon which most modern versions are based, are continually changing every few years. The Nestle text used to read the same as the King James Bible Textus Receptus – “HE THAT KILLETH with the sword must be killed with the sword.” So read Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Douay-Rheims 1582, the Geneva Bible 1587, Wesley’s translation 1755, the Revised Version 1881, Darby, Youngs, the American Standard Version 1901,  Weymouth 1902, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Lamsa, Etheridge and Murdocks three different translations of the Syriac Peshitta, Williams N.T. 1937, Goodspeed 1943, J.B. Phillips N.T. 1962, the World English Bible, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, the New English Bible 1970, the NKJV 1982, the Amplified Bible 1987, the NASB 1960-1995, the RSV 1952 – “if any one slays with the sword, with the sword must he be slain.” the NRSV 1989, Green’s literal 2000, the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and even the 2002 paraphrase called  the Message.

However, later on, they once again changed the Nestle-Aland (UBS) Greek text and they decided to follow the reading of ONE manuscript, (according to the UBS Greek text 4th edition,) that is, Alexandrinus. This single manuscript changes the reading from “he that killeth” to “he that is to be killed.” (passive voice, that is, he is the one being killed by another). The NIV 1977-1984 , the 2001 ESV, the 2003 Holman Standard, Dan Wallace’s NET version and the 2011 Common English Version have now adopted this variant reading based on one manuscript, and they now read: “IF ANYONE IS TO BE KILLED with the sword, with the sword he will be killed.”

Westcott and Hort themselves as well as Tischendorf and the previous Nestle critical Greek texts (I have a copy of the Nestle 4th edition 1934 and the Nestle 21st edition 1975) all read εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτενεῖ, δεῖ αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. = If any by the sword KILLS, HE MUST be killed by the sword.” Just like the KJB has it.  But then later on, the Nestle 27th edition has changed their text and it now reads: εἴ τις ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι αὐτὸν ἐν μαχαίρῃ ἀποκτανθῆναι. = if any IS TO BE KILLED, with the sword HE IS to be killed.” The latest, ever changing critical Greek Vatican text has now changed an present active indicative verb (kills=ἀποκτενεῖ) to a passive infinitive (to be killed =ἀποκτανθῆναι)  and they omitted to previous word “ought to” or “it is necessary” = δεῖ

Notice that the RSV and NRSV both followed the King James reading, but now the new ESV (a revision of the old RSV, NRSV) has now “scientifically” decided to go along with the NIV and follow a different text based on just one manuscript.

Actually, if you stop and think about it, the variant textual reading now adopted by the latest UBS, Nestle-Aland critical texts and several of the latest modern versions is the stupidest reading possible. The whole parallel idea of righteous retribution is lost  (you reap what you sow) and the painfully obvious is stated twice. The KJB says: “He that leadeth into captivity shall go into captivity: and he that killeth with the sword must be killed with the sword.” = just retribution for ones actions. However versions like the ESV, NIV, NET and Holman now read: “If anyone is to be taken captive, to captivity he goes; if anyone is to be slain with the sword, with the sword he must be slain.”  Well, Duh!

Among the Catholic versions we see the same typical confusion.  The 1582 Douay-Rheims as well as the 1950 Douay read like the Traditional Greek text and the KJB with “he that shall kill by the sword must be killed by the sword.”  Then the Catholic St. Joseph NAB changed their Greek text and reads like the ESV, NIV, NET, Holman versions with “if anyone is destined to be slain by the sword, by the sword he will be slain.” BUT now the 2009 Catholic Public Domain version has come out and it has gone back to the previous reading of “he that shall kill with the sword must be killed by the sword.” This is how the scholars’ game is played.

We might point out to Mr. James White that not only do his recommended “reliable and trustworthy versions” fail to follow the Majority reading here, but can’t seem to agree among themselves as to which Greek text to follow either.  The RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB go one way and the ESV, NIV another.

“My son, fear thou the LORD and the king: and MEDDLE NOT WITH THEM THAT ARE GIVEN TO CHANGE.” Proverbs 24:21

Another example today of DRBJU’s true colors showing that these “Do Right” groups have no intention of seeing their targets “do” anything but succumb to their agendas.

For whatever reason, the radio station apparently owned by BJU has changed some of their format. But ask a skeptic, and it’s because BJU is “giving up on God” according to the article posted by DRBJU from the blog DEBUNKING CHRISTIANITY.

In the “About” section of the DRBJU page, is stated in part:

 We believe that support for victims is especially important for those who know the love of Christ.

This is an ongoing struggle that we must face together. Abuse is an epidemic throughout all groups, but we Christians have a responsibility to stand with the abused and lift them up, instead of condemning them for their past and present struggles as a result of the abuse.

 (emphasis added)

So I guess according to DRBJU, those who “know the love of Christ” and the Christians who have a “responsibility to stand with the abused” are better off as Christians being pointed to a website that has articles such as “Why I Became An Atheist”, “A Refutation of Christianity”, “How to Destroy Natural Theology”.

The news about BJU’s format is not new to fundamentalists who have frowned upon BJU’s turn towards worldly vices to make their format more appealing , yet it behooved DRBJU to post this information directing it’s readers to a website dedicated to “debunking Christianity”. And to note as we have discussed in previous articles, DRBJU’s founder, Christopher Peterman is a claimed agnostic.

Ironically, the author of the article claims to have received 50 demerits for listening to a Loretta Lynn song in the early 1970’s. I wonder how many demerits he would have received if he had watched Glee in 1970! Oh wait, BJU only gives out  demerits for those they retaliate on, forget about that.

By Will Kinney

Jeremiah 31:3  “unto ME”, “unto HIM”, “unto THEM”, “unto US” or “to ISRAEL”? (Hey, it’s all the same meaning, right?)

Jeremiah 31:3 – “The LORD hath appeared of old UNTO ME, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.”
The Lord hath appeared of old UNTO ME, is the Hebrew text reading and is found in Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew’s Bible 1549, the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Douay-Rheims 1610, the KJB 1611, the NKJV, the Revised Version 1881, the 1901 ASV – “Jehovah appeared of old unto me, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love: therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.”, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society version, the 1936 Jewish translation, the Judaica Press Tanach of 2004, the Hebrew Names Bible, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Darby, Youngs – “From afar Jehovah hath appeared TO ME, With love age-during I have loved thee, Therefore I have drawn thee with kindness.” Douay 1950, New Berkeley Version in Modern Speech 1969, World English Bible, Green’s interlinear 2000, Third Millenium Bible 1998.
The word “thee” seen twice in this verse, is the SINGULAR you, as opposed to the plural English “you” found in the KJB, Geneva Bible, RV, ASV and JPS 1917 – “the LORD appeared unto ME, Yea, I have loved THEE with an everlasting love; Therefore with affection have I drawn THEE.”, and the only reading that grammatically makes sense is the Hebrew reading found in the KJB – the Lord appeared to ME, saying, I have loved THEE…
Foreign language translations that follow the Hebrew text and read like the KJB are Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta – “The LORD has appeared TO ME from afar, saying, Yea, I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn you.”, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada – “De longe o Senhor ME apareceu, dizendo: Pois que com amor eterno te amei, também com benignidade te atraí.” = “to ME…therefore with lovingkindness have I drawn thee.”, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1569 and Reina Valera 1909 – “El SEÑOR se manifestó a mí hace ya mucho tiempo, diciendo : Con amor eterno te he amado , the Italian Nuova Diodati of 1991 – “Molto tempo fa l’Eterno MI è apparso, dicendo: «Sí, ti ho amata di un amore eterno; per questo ti ho attirata con benevolenza.” = “appeared TO ME…I have drawn thee with lovingkindness.”, the French Martin 1744 and Ostervald 1996 – “De loin l’Éternel m’est apparu, et m’a dit: Je t’ai aimée d’un amour éternel”, Luther’s German Bible 1545 and the Modern Greek Bible – “Ο Κυριος εφανη παλαιοθεν εις εμε, λεγων, Ναι, σε ηγαπησα αγαπησιν η αιωνιον· δια τουτο σε ειλκυσα με ελεος” = “The Lord appeared to me of old, saying, Yea, I have loved thee with an everlasting love. Therefore with mercy (lovingkindnes) HAVE I DRAWN THEE to me.”
However the NASB says: “The LORD appeared TO HIM from afar, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; Therefore I have drawn you with lovingkindness.”
The RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard read the same as the NASB (to HIM), but they all have a footnote that says Greek -to him; Hebrew – to me. The NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV have all followed the LXX and rejected the clear Hebrew text.
Even the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text and says: “The LORD appeared TO ME long ago, saying: I have loved you with an everlasting love, so I have drawn you…”
The ESV has not only rejected the Hebrew reading of “to ME” and changed it to “to HIM” but has changed the meaning of the verse.  The ESV reads ” the Lord appeared to HIM [1] from far away. I have loved you with an everlasting love; therefore  I have CONTINUED MY FAITHUFLNESS TO YOU.”instead of “I HAVE DRAWN THEE.”  The Hebrew word is “to draw” (as even the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV have it) and is used in “heifer which hath not DRAWN in the yoke” (Deut. 21:3); “a certain man DREW a bow” (1 Kings 22:34); “when he DRAWETH him into his net” (Psalm 10:9), “DRAW me, we will run after thee” (Song of Solomon 1:4); “and they DREW Joseph out of the pit” (Genesis 37:28); “Canst thou DRAW OUT Leviathan with an hook?” (Job 41:1), “So they DREW up Jeremiah with  cords, and took him up out of the dungeon.” (Jeremiah 38:13) etc.
 Furthermore, the ESV says they got their reading of “TO HIM” instead of “TO ME” from the so called Greek Septuagint, but they don’t mention the fact that the LXX has chapter 31 not in 31 but in chapter 38 of Jeremiah, AND even the Greek LXX reads “I have loved thee with an everlasting love, therefore I HAVE DRAWN THEE”!!! This is how modern “scholarship” works, folks.
The Catholic bible versions present us with their typical ever-changing textual changes. The older Douay-Rheims of 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both agree with the Hebrew text and the KJB saying “to ME”, but the St. Joseph  New American bible of 1970 and the Jerusalem bible of 1968 say “to HIM”, but then the New Jerusalem bible of 1985 has now gone back to reading “to ME”.
Dan Wallace’s NET version is so messed up it is unrecognizable. It says: “In a far-off land the Lord will manifest himself TO THEM. He will say to them, ‘I have loved you with an everlasting love. That is why I have continued to be faithful to you.” This goofy version is much like the ESV and changes the Hebrew “to thee” to “to them” and has altered so many things in the Hebrew text that it is beyond recognition. Also reading “to THEM” is the New English Version 1970 and the Revised English Version of 1989.
The NIV has something even different with its “The LORD appeared to US in the past, saying, “I have loved you with an everlasting love; I have drawn you with loving-kindness.” the NIV has “TO US” instead of the Hebrew “to me” or the Greek “to him”, and just makes up their own text as they go along. However, the NIV Spanish edition follows the Hebrew and says “to ME” – La Nueva Versión Internacional 1999 – “Hace mucho tiempo se ME apareció el Señor y ME dijo…”
The 2007 New Living Translation now has:  “Long ago the LORD said TO ISRAEL: “I have loved you, my people, with an everlasting love. With unfailing love I have drawn you to myself.”
Let’s see – to me, to him, to us, to them or to Israel…Yep, pretty much the same thing, right?
Friends don’t let friends read perverted bible versions. Get yourself a King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.  God bless.

By Will Kinney

Sabbath day, Sabbaths, week?

I recently got an email from a fellow King James Bible believer who was concerned about a friend who had his faith shaken in the absolute truth of the King James Bible by an article he read about how the KJB supposedly mistranslated the word for Sabbaths. 

He writes: Hi Brother Will, Thank you for your ongoing work to demonstrate the authenticity of God’s Word as preserved in the King James Bible.  I have come across somebody who’s trust in the King James Bible has been shaken by what they believe is a mistranslation in several verses of the word – σαββατων.  The “mistranslation” occurs in Matt 28:1; Mark 16:2, 9; Luke 24:1; John 20:1, 19; Acts 20:7, and 1 Cor. 16:2.   They believe that this word should be translated as the plural noun – Sabbaths.


The King James Bible is not in error at all in any of these verses. In fact, to translate it as Sabbaths ends up in absurdity as we shall soon see. The Greek word for Sabbath day and “week” is the same word and it can occur either in the singular or the plural form, but both forms (the singular and the plural) can have the same meaning. It can be either σαββατων (the plural form ) translated in almost every English and foreign language Bibles as either “the sabbath day (Mat. 12:1), the sabbath days (Mat. 12:5) or week (Mat. 28:1)” or the singular σαββάτου also translated as “the sabbath (Lk. 6:5), the sabbath day (Lk.6:7) and the week (Lk. 18:12)”. 

Liddell and Scott’s Greek Lexicon tells us that both the singular and the plural forms are interchangeable and can mean either “the Sabbath or “frequently in the plural of the single day – the Sabbath.” Both the singular and the plural form can also have the meaning of “the week”. Liddell and Scott Greek-English Lexicon, Oxford at the Clarendon Press 1968, page 1579. 

Vines Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words also tells us that both the singular and plural forms are interchangeable and can either “the Sabbath day or the week”.  Pages 993-994.

The Bauer, Arndt and Gingrich Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament affirms the same thing telling us that both the singular and the plural forms can mean either “the first day of the week, the Sabbath or the Sabbath days”. The University of Chicago Press 1957, Page 746.

Likewise Thayer’s 1889 Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament tells us on pages 565-566 that the singular and the plural forms can both mean “the seventh day of each week, a single Sabbath, the Sabbath day and the week.”

Let’s take a look at one of these examples and see what the various Bible translations have done.  The first one that presented a problem for this Bible believer was Matthew 28:1.  In the Greek this reads: “Ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων, τῇ ἐπιφωσκούσῃ εἰς μίαν σαββάτων, ἦλθεν Μαρία ἡ Μαγδαληνή, καὶ ἡ ἄλλη Μαρία, θεωρῆσαι τὸν τάφον.”

The English translation in the King James Bible is – “In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.”

There are no textual variants in this verse.  Both the UBS critical text and the Textus Receptus are the same. You will notice that the word  σαββάτων is in the plural form and it is used twice in this verse. The first time  σαββάτων is translated as “In the end OF THE SABBATH” and the second one “εἰς μίαν σαββάτων” is translated as “THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK”. The word  μίαν is feminine and implies the feminine Greek word for day ἡμέρᾳ (heemera), and so the whole combination is correctly translated as “the first day of the week”. 

Not only does the King James Bible read “OF THE SABBATH” and “THE FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK” but so also do the Bishops’ Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, Mace N.T. 1729, Wesley’s translation 1755, Webster’s translation 1833, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, the RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, ESV 2001, NKJV 1982, ISV 2010, NIV 1984, 2011, NASB 1995, Common English Bible 2011, Hebrew Names Version Holman Standard 2003, Dan Wallace’s NET version and the Third Millenium Bible 1998. 

Foreign language Bible that have translated both instances sabbatoon as did the King James Bible are Lamsa’s translation of the Syriac Peshitta, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald of 1996 – “Or au soir du Sabbat, au jour qui devait luire pour le premier de la semaine“, the Italian Riveduta 1927 and the Nuova Riveduta 2006 – “Or nella notte del sabato,quando già albeggiava, il primo giorno della settimana“, the Spanish Reina Valera 1858, 1909, 1960 and 1995 – “Y LA víspera de sábado, que amanece para el primer día de la semana”, the Portuguese Almeida Actualizada – “No fim do sábado, quando já despontava o primeiro dia da semana” and Luther’s German bible of 1545 and the German Schlachter Bible of 2000 – “Als aber der Sabbat um war und der erste Tag der Woche anbrach”.

The only odd ball among them is Young’s “literal” version. It has the non-nonsensical translation of – “And ON THE EVE OF THE SABBATHS, at the dawn, toward THE FIRST OF THE SABBATHS, came Mary the Magdalene, and the other Mary, to see the sepulchre.”  To (mis)translate the first part as “on the eve of the Sabbaths” would imply that there were several Sabbaths about to occur on this very night, and to (mis)translate the second part as “the first of the sabbaths came Mary Magdalene” would imply that there were NO sabbaths before this one when Mary came to the tomb. Duh. This is a totally absurd translation on the part of Young. Young is also inconsistent in his translations as well. He translated the exact same Greek phrase μίαν σαββάτων (which here in Matthew 28:1 he has as “the first of the Sabbaths”) in BOTH 1 Corinthians 16:2 μίαν σαββάτων and in Acts 20:7 as “the FIRST DAY OF THE WEEK”-   τῇ μιᾷ τῶν σαββάτων! 

The King James Bible is NOT in error at all but is right, as always. 

Will Kinney

For more articles by Will Kinney on the defense of the KJV see the index of his articles on his website here

By Will Kinney

Isaiah 48:1 “waters”, “loins” or “seed”?

Isaiah 48:1 KJB – “Here ye this, O house of Jacob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are ome forth out of the WATERS of Judah…”

The word here in the Hebrew Masoretic text is cleary WATERS of Judah, and is so rendered by the KJB, Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible – “Heare yee this, O house of Iaakob, which are called by the name of Israel, and are come out of the waters of Iudah”, the Douay-Rheims of 1610, the Revised Version 1881, ASV 1901, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Young’s, Webster’s 1833, Douay of 1950, the New Berkeley Version in Modern English 1969, Green’s literal 2000, the Judaica Press Tanach – “and who emanated from the waters of Judah”, the Apostolic Bible Polyglot, the Concordant Literal Version,  the Orthodox Jewish Bible 2011, Lexham Bible 2012,  the Third Millenium Bible 1998 and even the 2001 English Standard Version.

The NKJV needlessly alters this to the WELLSPRINGS of Judah, but at least retains the idea of water. The NASB, RSV, and NRSV say ‘the LOINS of Judah” with a footnote in the RSV telling us this is a correction to the text and that the Hebrew reads ‘waters’. The reading or interpretation of ‘loins’ comes from some Targum commentators but it is not what the Hebrew actually says. John Gill says the ‘seed of Judah’ is a Targum interpretation. The NIV likewise says “from the LINE of Judah.” According to a book on the Dead Sea Scrolls, the reading is “the LOINS of Judah” but they have a footnote telling us that the word was misspelled.

The Holman Standard of 2003 is a bit weird in that it just omits the phrase altogether and reads: “who are called by the name Israel and have DESCENDED FROM [1]  Judah”, but then in their Footnote they tell us “Literally ‘have come from the waters of Judah”.  Perhaps the Holman is following the so called Greek Septuagint here because the LXX likewise omits the phrase altogether and simply says “are come from Judah”.

Dan Wallace and company’s NET version likewise omits the phrase and has “and are descended from Judah.”  He then footnotes “The Hebrew text reads literally “and from the waters of Judah came out.”  The Latin Vulgate of 405 A.D. follows the Hebrew text in this place and says -“et de aquis Juda existis” = “waters of Judah”.

Once again we see the purification process in the previous English Bibles. Wycliffe 1395 correctly has “the waters of Judah” but Coverdale 1535 and the Bishops’ Bible 1568 erroneously have “the STOCK of Judah”. The Geneva Bible the went back to the Hebrew reading of “the waters of Judah”.Among the Catholic versions we see the usual confusion. The older Douay-Rheims 1610 and the Douay of 1950 both followed the Hebrew text and say “the WATERS of Judah”. But then the 1969 Jerusalem bible and the 1970 St. Joseph New American Bible both changed this to “the STOCK of Judah”.  Oh, but wait!  Now the 1985 New Jerusalem bible and the 2009 Catholic Public Domain Version have gone back to the Hebrew reading of “the WATERS of Judah”.  Nothing like consistent inconsistency, is there.

Foreign language Bibles that also read “the waters of Judah” are Luther’s German bible 1545 and the 2000 Schlacher Bible – “aus dem Wasser Juda’s”, the Spanish Reina Valers 1960, 1995 – “los que salieron de las aguas de Judá”, the Portuguese A Biblia Sagrada em Portugués and the Almeida Corrigida E Fiel  – “e saístes das águas de Judá”, the Italian Diodati of 1649 – “e siete usciti delle acque di Giuda”, and the Dutch Staten Vertaling Bible – “en uit de wateren van Juda”.  The Modern Greek Bible reads “the fountain of Judah” – “και εξελθοντες εκ της πηγης του Ιουδα·”

For additional articles defending the KJV, see the index of articles on his website here.


Jeffrey Hoffman is an avowed Anglo-Catholic parishioner, and has attempted to defend the Roman Catholic Church [1]. Mr. Hoffman also defends the practice of homosexuality and vilifies anyone that opposes it as “hate speech” and “defamation of character”. See Jeffrey’s article on “Why I Became An Activist”.

Yet the very arguments that he levels against fundamentalists who oppose homosexuality are found on the apologetics website of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholic Answers.

In the Catholic Answers article on homosexuality, the CA states:

“Every human being is called to receive a gift of divine sonship, to become a child of God by grace. However, to receive this gift, we must reject sin, including homosexual behavior—that is, acts intended to arouse or stimulate a sexual response regarding a person of the same sex. The Catholic Church teaches that such acts are always violations of divine and natural law. ”

“Throughout history, Jewish and Christian scholars have recognized that one of the chief sins involved in God’s destruction of Sodom was its people’s homosexual behavior”

The article even accuses homosexual activists of reinterpreting scripture.

So let’s see if Jeffrey Hoffman accuses that Catholic Church that he claims to support of “hate speech” and see if he utilizes the same efforts to vilify the RCC on this issue as he does fundamentalists and demonstrate that he is truly consistent in his application and practice of what he professes to believe!

And, yes, we believe the Roman Catholic Church is the WHORE of Revelation chapter 17.

*You can view the debate here where this question is posed to Jeffrey Hoffman directly: Is the Roman Catholic Church teaching hate speech and watch how he continues to avoid the question and will not give a simple yes or no when asked several different times.

The debate has evolved into a virtual comic strip and has become quite entertaining. Jeffrey summoned a hired gun to debate me and then bragged about how many Facebook friends were following him (740 to be exact)!

After several hours, Jeffrey still refused to give a simple yes or no to the question about the Roman Catholic Church teaching “hate speech” which clearly shows a bias agenda against fundamentalism. Jeffrey calls the RCC “misinformed” but says that fundamentalists are “hate mongers” for the exact same language and facts used against homosexuality.

The following is an excerpt taken from Norman Geisler’s “When Skeptics Ask, Chapter 12.

Additional Video Links at the end of this article.

“What is truth?” Pilate’s words ring with the cynicism of a man who has searched for it
but never found it. His implication is that there is no such thing. Pilate is not alone. Many
have followed the same road, so that what is taught in the schools is the same cynical
conclusion: There is no truth.
For the Christian, that view is not an option. Jesus said, “Thy word is truth” ( John
17:17 ), and He said again, “I am … the truth” ( 14:6 ). There is truth; but what is the
nature of truth? More important, how can we know truth?
Have you heard this one yet? “Whatever is true for you may not be true for me.” Or
how about, “I’m really glad you found something that works for you.” What good does it
do to tell someone about Jesus if he doesn’t realize that you are saying, “This is true for
everyone, everywhere, at all times, and it is not compatible with any opposing system of
beliefs”? If we are going to tell the world that we have the truth, then we better have
some idea of what truth is. How else can we make them understand?
The claim that truth is relative might be understood as relative in two ways

Either truth is relative to time and space (it was true then, but not now), or it is relative to persons (true for me, but not for you). On the other hand, absolute truth implies at least two things: (1)
that whatever is true at one time and in one place is true at all times and in all places, and
(2) that whatever is true for one person is true for all persons. Absolute truth doesn’t
change; relative truth changes from time to time and person to person.
The relativist would say that the statement, “The pencil is to the left of the pad,” is
relative since it depends on which side of the desk you are standing. Place is always
relative to perspective, they say. But truth can be time-bound as well. At one time, it was
perfectly true to say, “Reagan is President,” but one can hardly say that now. It was true
at one time, but not now. The truth of such statements is irrevocably contingent on the
time at which they are said.
Likewise, the relativist claims that truth is dependent on the person making the
statement. If a Christian says, “Ye are gods” ( John 10:34 ), it means that we have the
image of God and are His representatives. If a Mormon says it, he is speaking of his hope
to be the deity of his own planet. If a pantheist says it, she means that humans are God.
The truth depends on the views of the one who makes the statement and his intended
meaning. Also, “I feel sick” may be true for me but not for everyone else in the world.
All these statements are true only in relation to the person who makes them.
But there seems to be a misunderstanding here. The interpretation of the relativist
appears to be misguided. As regards time and place, the perspective of the speaker,
temporal and spatial, is understood in the statement. For example, “Reagan is President,”
when said in 1986 is true and it always will be true. At no time will it cease to be true that
Reagan was President in 1986. If someone uses the same words in 1990, then he is
making a new and different truth claim, because the present tense is now four years
removed from the context of the other statement. The spatial and temporal context of
statements is an inherent part of the context which determines the meaning of that
assertion. However, if “Reagan is President” (said in 1986) is always true for everyone
everywhere, then it is an absolute truth. The same can be said about the pencil on the
desk. The perspective of the speaker is understood as part of the context. It is an absolute
“All Truth Is Perspectival”
Many people will tell you that all truth is really true from a certain way of seeing
things or perspective. The old story of six blind men and the elephant is often used to
illustrate and support this position. One blind man, feeling only the trunk, thought that
it was a snake. Another discovered only the ears and concluded that it was a fan. The
one who came across the body said that it was a wall and, after finding a leg, another
said it was a tree. Another holding the tail declared it was a rope. Finally, the last
blind man felt a pointed tusk and informed them that it was a spear. To some, this
proves that what you think is true is only a matter of your perspective of things. It
should be pointed out, though, that all of the blind men were wrong. None of their
conclusions were true, so this illustration says nothing about truths. There really was
an objective truth that all of them failed to discover

Also, the statement, “All truth is perspectival,” is either an absolute statement or a perspectival one.

If it is absolute, then not all truths are perspectival. If it is perspectival, then there is no reason to think :

that it is absolutely true—it is only one perspective. It does not succeed either way.

But what about the second version of relativism, that truth is relative to persons? If
we take the case of the Christian, the Mormon, and the pantheist, we see that the same
problem of excluding perspective is involved. Using the same words does not guarantee
the same meaning. We must consider what the actual claim is in its context before we can
tell if it is true. What about, “I feel sick”? Guess what: personal pronouns don’t even
transfer as well as verb tenses. It doesn’t matter that the same words are used; when said
by different people, they take on a different meaning. Are these statements true for
everyone? Yes, it is true that the person called “I” in the sentence did feel sick at that
time and that must be acknowledged as true by everyone (though we have to take “I’s”
word about how he felt). In the same way, the meanings attached to the words “ye are
gods” truly reflect the views of the people who said them, and it will never be not true for
anyone, anytime, that those were their views when they stated them (even if they change
their views later).
Now about this time a relativist might say, “You are agreeing with me. You are
saying that truth is relative to the context.” That’s close. We are saying that meaning is
relative to the context. As for truth, we are saying that once the context is brought into the
picture, the meaning is understood and it becomes obvious that these are absolute truths.
We are not agreeing at all.
But relativism runs into other problems. If relativism were true, then the world would
be full of contradictory conditions. That pencil that we mentioned would be on all four
sides of the pad at the same time. “I” would have to be sick, well, angry, delighted,
hungry, stuffed, excited, and ambivalent all at once. How confusing! Such contradictory
conditions are impossible.
Also, no relativist can say, “It is absolutely true that this is true for me.” If truth can
only be relative, then it must only be relatively true for him. But wait a minute! THAT
can’t be claimed in any absolute sense either—it can only be relatively true that it is
relatively true for him. Should we keep going? Either the claim that truth is relative is an
absolute claim, which would falsify the relativist’s position, or it is an assertion that can
never be made, because every time you make it you have to add another “relatively.” It is
just the beginning of an infinite regress that will never pay off in a real statement.
“Life Is but a Dream”
Some might tell you that we each create our own reality. What is real to you is not
real to me because your dream is not my dream. In fact, you only perceive me in your
dream and don’t know whether I am real or not. Not only is truth subjective, there is
no absolute reality to be known. All reality is nothing but imagination run wild.
Something intuitively tells us that this view can’t be true. First, “nothing but”
statements assume “more than” knowledge.

But how can anyone have knowledge that is beyond their own dream?

For that matter, how can you have knowledge that is
“more than” all of reality? One would have to be omniscient to say this. Furthermore,
is this a statement about absolute reality or only about one person’s dream? If it is
really a statement about “all reality” in an absolute sense, then it cannot be true—for
at least this statement is true whether someone imagines it or not. But if it is only a
subjective statement about one person’s dream, then it makes no claim to be true and
can be dismissed. It might not hurt to remind such a person that he should not talk in
his sleep.
Of course, there are some benefits to relativism. It means that you can never be
wrong. As long as it is right for me, I’m right even when I’m wrong! Isn’t that
convenient? The drawback is that I could never learn anything either, because learning is
moving from a false belief to a true one—that is, from an absolutely false belief to an
absolutely true one. Maybe we’d better give absolutism another look.
Some people see problems in absolutism. “Don’t you have to have absolute evidence
to believe in absolute truth?” No. The truth can be absolute no matter what our grounds
for believing it are. We might not even know a truth, but it is still absolute in itself. The
truth doesn’t change just because we learn something about it.
“What about in-between things—like what warm means, or when not shaving
becomes a beard—how can those things be absolute?” The fact that it is in-between to me
is an absolute fact for all men, even if it is not in-between to them. Also, the condition
itself, the real temperature and the exact length of the beard, are objective and real
conditions. That truth doesn’t change either.
“You Christians Are So Closed-Minded”
Open-mindedness has become a self-evident virtue in our society and a closed mind,
a sign of ignorance and depravity. However, this thinking is based on half-truths.
Surely, it is good to admit the possibility that one might be wrong and never good to
maintain a position no matter what the evidence is against it. Also, one should never
make a firm decision without examining all the evidence without prejudice. That is
the half-truth that ropes us into this view, but a half-truth is a whole lie. Are we still to
remain open-minded when all reason says that there can be only one conclusion? That
is the same as the error of the closed mind. In fact, openness is the most closedminded position of all because it eliminates any absolute view from consideration.
What if the absolute view is true? Isn’t openness taken to be absolute? In the long
run, openness cannot really be true unless it is open to some real absolutes that cannot
be denied. Open-mindedness should not be confused with empty-mindedness. One
should never remain open to a second alternative when only one can be true.
“If truth never changes, then there can’t be any new truth.” New truth can be
understood in two ways. It might mean “new to us,” like a new discovery in science. But
that is only a matter of us discovering an old truth. The truth has always been there, but
we are just finding out about it.

The other way we might understand new truth is that something new has come into existence.

Absolutism has no trouble handling this either.
When January 1, 2022 arrives, a new truth will be born because then it will be true to say,
“This is January 1, 2022.” That can never be true before then. “Old” truths don’t change
but “new” truths can come to be.
There are two basic views of what truth is. One says that truth is what corresponds to
reality. The other says that a view is true if it coheres or holds together as an internally
consistent set of statements. The former says that truth is what corresponds to reality.
Truth is “telling it like it is.” The latter compares truth to a web hanging in space so that
its own network of connections upholds it. Like a chain, each link is dependent on the
others to hold it together.
The implications of the coherence theory are that some truths are truer than others
because they cohere better. There are degrees of truth and any statement is true only to
the extent that it fits into the system.
Saying that there are degrees of truth, as the coherentist does, and that all truths are
dependent is just another way of saying that all truth is relative. If all statements are
dependent (contingent) on the system, then no truth can be absolute. Even the system as a
whole is not absolute, because it depends on the coherence of all of its contingent parts. If
one statement can be more or less true than another statement, isn’t that the same as
saying that its truth is relative to the truth of the other? But we have already shown that
truth is, and must be, absolute. If the coherence theory says that truth is relative, then the
theory must be wrong.
Another objection to the coherentist view is that it makes truth dependent on an infinite
regress that will never arrive at any truth. If every truth claim presupposes some other
claim, and so on to infinity, then we have an infinite regress that will never assure us that
we have arrived at truth. For every explanation we give of why our belief is true, we
would have to explain its presuppositions, and then explain that explanation, and so on
forever. We could never finish explaining anything. If we did find an explanation that
needed no further explanation, then we will have arrived at a foundation (a self-evident
truth or undeniable first principle), and the coherence view was wrong to begin with. C.S.
Lewis put it this way:
But you cannot go on “explaining away” forever: you will find that you have explained
explanation itself away. You cannot go on “seeing through” things forever. The whole
point of seeing through something is to see something through it. It is good that the
window should be transparent, because the street or garden beyond it is opaque. How if
you saw through the garden too? It is no use trying to “see through” first principles.

If you see through everything then everything is transparent. But a wholly transparent world
is an invisible world. To “see through” all things is the same as not to see.
If we have to look behind or “see through” every explanation, then we will never find
anything. But don’t we search for truth because we expect to find something?
This infinite regress makes coherentism impossible. It is really a chain of unsupported
claims. After all, a chain can’t just hang in the air by itself; there has got to be a peg
somewhere that holds the whole chain up. And spiders don’t build webs in empty space.
They attach them to the walls. No system can stand without some absolute truth to
support it. Also, the best that a coherentist can do in evaluating other systems of belief is
to say that his system coheres better. He can never say that any other coherent system is
false. In that case, we could never refute pantheism, because once you throw out logic,
everything coheres.
Truth must be based on a firm foundation of self-evident truths or first principles that
correspond to reality. We will discuss self-evident truths a little later, but let’s focus on
the correspondence part of the definition for right now. There are several reasons for
accepting it, both from the Bible and from philosophy.
The Scriptures use the correspondence view of truth quite a bit. The ninth
commandment certainly presupposes it. “You shall not bear false witness against your
neighbor” ( Ex. 20:16 ) implies that the truth or falsity of a statement can be tested by
whether it checks out with the facts. When Satan said, “You shall not surely the,” it is
called a lie because it does not correspond to what God actually said.
Jack Rogers’ View of Truth
Jack Rogers, a professor at Fuller Theological Seminary, has given the definition of
truth that is currently being used to say that the Bible is infallible in its intentions
(purpose), but not inerrant in its affirmations. He says, “to confuse ‘error’ in the sense
of technical accuracy with the biblical notion of error as willful deception diverts us
from the serious intent of Scripture.” He rejects the idea that truth must correspond to
reality with “technical accuracy.” Rather, he asserts that the “biblical notion of error”
involves knowingly telling a lie. Truth resides in the intention of the author rather
than what he actually said. This is confirmed when he says that inerrancy distracts us,
not from the message of Scripture, but from its “intent.” As long as the prophets and
disciples did not know any better than to make unscientific statements, they cannot be
considered errors because there was no intentional deception. Though Jesus may have
known better. He chose to accommodate to the popular views so that people would
not be distracted from His intended message, the Gospel. Those who hold this view
are sincere, but they are sincerely wrong.

1 C.S. Lewis, The Abolition of Man (New York: Macmillan Co., 1947), p. 91.

Joseph also used the correspondence theory when he said to his brothers, “Send one
of you that he may get your brother.…that your words may be tested, whether there is
truth in you” ( Gen. 42:16 ). Moses said that a prophet should be tested by seeing if his
prophecies correspond to actual events ( Deut. 18:22 ). When Solomon built the temple
he said, “Let Your word that You promised Your servant David my father come true” ( 1
Kings 8:26 , NIV ). Anything that does not correspond to God’s Law is considered false (
Ps. 119:163 ). And in the New Testament, Jesus says that His claims can be verified by
John the Baptist, saying, “You have sent to John and he has borne witness to the truth.”
The Jews also told the governor that he could “learn the truth” ( Acts 24:8 , 11 ) about the
charges they brought against Paul by examining the facts.
Philosophically, lying is impossible without a correspondence to reality. If our words
do not need to correspond to the facts, then they can never be factually incorrect. Without
a correspondence view of truth, there can be no true or false. There would be no real
difference in the accuracy of how a system describes a given fact because we could not
appeal to the fact as evidence. Statements could not be judged as true or false, but only
more or less cohesive. There has got to be a real difference between our thoughts about
things and the things themselves for us to say whether something is true or false.
Furthermore, all factual communication would break down. Statements that inform you
of something must correspond to the facts about which they claim to be giving
information. But if those facts are not to be used in evaluating the statement, then I really
haven’t told you anything. I have merely babbled something that you ought to consider
and weigh its relevance to your own system of thought. Now this could be quite
dangerous if you were crossing the street and my statement was to inform you that a
Mack truck was coming. How long should you take to see if that fits into your overall
network of beliefs? (And does not the Gospel carry the same kind of urgency?)
Correspondence to reality is a philosophical prerequisite for truth and truthful
Another theory is that truth is not a quality of propositions, but of intentions. Adherents
of this theory say that the meaning of any statement lies not in what it says about reality,
but in what the person intended to affirm when he said it. A statement is considered true
if it achieves its intended purpose and false only if it is intended to mislead someone.
Hence, a person can make statements which do not correspond to the facts but are not lies
or errors because the person meant to tell the truth—he did not intend to deceive. This
view has special relevance to the debate about whether there are errors in the Bible in that
some claim there can be factual inconsistencies in the Bible and still call the Scriptures
infallible. It is claimed that they infallibly accomplish their purpose of leading men to
Christ and the authors never intentionally deceived anyone.
The correspondence view says that truth resides in propositions. Meaning is a
disclosure of the author’s intentions, but it can only be discovered by looking at what he
actually said. Since we cannot read the author’s mind when we want to know the
meaning of a statement, we look at the statement itself.

Only when we see the proper relation of all the words in the sentence, and the sentence to the paragraph, etc., do we
understand the big meaning of the affirmation. Then we check it against reality to see if it
is true or false.
Is truth ever in a person rather than a proposition? Out of the hundred or so times that
“truth” is used in the New Testament, only one passage indisputably uses truth of a
Person ( John 14:6 ). Other texts refer to truth being in a person ( 1:14 , 17 ; 8:44 ; 1 John
2:4 ) or walking in truth ( 2 John 4 ). However, the context of these clarifies that the truth
is tested by the correspondence between the person’s behavior and God’s commands,
which are propositions. So even here truth is correspondence. Persons, their character,
and conduct can correspond to reality as well as propositions can. The emphasis of the
biblical text is certainly on prepositional truth. And passages where truth is used of a
person can be understood as relating to the truthfulness of that person’s words or works,
as to whether or not they correspond to God’s reality.
Even if some passages do use truth as a quality of persons, only the correspondence
view can accommodate both interpretations. The personal view says that truth does not
reside in propositions, but a correspondence view can say that the persons or actions in
question must correspond to God’s expectations. And the passages where truth is clearly
seen as propositional and correspondent cannot all be explained in a noncorrespondence
Just to top it off, any attempt to deny that truth is expressible in propositions is selfdefeating ,because it is a truth claim expressed in a proposition. Hence, the correspondence view of truth must be accepted for truth to reside in both persons and propositions.
Even among Christians there is a wide range of beliefs about how and how much we can
know about truth, especially truth about God. If what we have said so far is true though,
then only one of these positions is really reasonable.
There is a real difference between agnosticism and skepticism but the answers to both of
them are almost identical. Agnosticism says that nothing can be known, but skepticism
only says that we should doubt whether anything can be known. Skepticism came along
first, but as Immanuel Kant read David Hume’s doubts about absolute knowledge, he
decided to take it one step farther and disclaimed all knowledge of reality. Really both of
these views are self-defeating. If you know that you don’t know anything, then at least
you know that much. But that means you have positive knowledge of something and you
no longer have to be agnostic. Likewise, you may say that you should doubt everything,
but you don’t doubt that. That is, you don’t doubt that you should doubt. Now if there is one thing that you can be certain of (to the skeptic), or one thing that you can know (to
the agnostic), then there might be other things, and your position has proven itself to be
Dealing with Skeptics
One great philosopher had an effective way to deal with skepticism. When
encountered by people who claimed to doubt everything, he would ask, “Do you
doubt your own existence?” If they answered yes, then he would point out that they
must exist in order to doubt and that certainty should remove their doubts. If they
answered no, then he could show them that there are at least some things which are
beyond doubt. To counter this assault on their doctrines, Ac skeptics decided to
simply remain silent. Then they would not be caught in his trap. The philosopher was
not shaken though. At that point, he simply said, “I guess there is nobody here after
all. I may as well go talk to somebody who exists.” And he walked away.
Rationalism is not merely a view that says we use reason to test truth. Rationalism says
that we can determine all truth by logic. It says that we can rationally prove the existence
and nature of God. For a rationalist, no appeal to evidence can overturn a logical
demonstration. That is why Spinoza, having proven to his own satisfaction that all reality
was unified in absolute being, denied that anything in the world had existence distinct
from God, or that there was any free will. That is why Leibniz maintained that this is the
best of all possible worlds, no matter how bad things get. He was convinced by
rationalism that only the greatest good can exist. All truth is logically necessary to a
Irrational Rationalism
Oddly enough, the most stubborn rationalists in the world are pantheists, who don’t
believe in reason. Even from pantheism’s earliest statements in Western culture,
pantheists have begun with one principle and derived all others from it: All is one.
Now if that is true, they say, then whatever seems to be more than one must be
illusion. Hence, there is no matter, no evil, no right and wrong, etc. All of these things
follow from the one principle and are determined by a rationalistic method that allows
no evidence to contradict it. Most extraordinarily, rationalism leads them to the
rejection of reason. For once the distinction between true and false is removed, then
rationalism demands that logic be revoked. Reason, having gotten them this far, must
now be jettisoned because of the determinative nature of their original principle.
Rationalism becomes the foe of reason.
The big problem with rationalism is that it is a castle built in the air that has no link
with reality. It assumes—but does not prove—that the rationally inescapable is the real.
In fact, in all of its logical rationalizing, it never proves that anything real even exists.

The only way that rationalism can overcome these weaknesses is to quit being
rationalism and begin accepting some empirical evidence. Also, my own existence is
actually undeniable, but it is not logically necessary. There is nothing in my existence
that even suggests that I, or anything else, must exist, yet rationalism says, again without
solid proof, that this is logically necessary. Finally, when rationalism tries to prove its
own principles to offer a justification for itself, it fails doubly. The attempt itself is futile
because everyone from Aristotle to the present has agreed that first principles cannot be
proven; they must be self-evidently true and in need of no further explanation. Otherwise
you have to go on explaining forever. But rationalists fail again in that they don’t agree
on what the first principles are. Some end up in pantheism, some in theism, some with
finite gods, but none with the rationally necessary basis that they claim will justify their
Fideism holds that the only way we can know anything about God is by faith. Truth is
subjective and personal, so we can believe it but not prove it. There are no rational proofs
or empirical evidence that can lead us to knowledge of God. We must simply believe that
what He has said in His Word and done in our lives is true. Ultimately, as the old hymn
says, “You ask me how I know He lives; He lives within my heart.” Søren Kierkegaard is
a spokesman of this view.
“Truth Is Subjectivity”
Søren Kierkegaard, the father of existentialism, wrote an essay with this title. He
was concerned that, if Christianity was accepted only as a set of propositions, then it
would never lead one to a relationship with God. Hence, rather than focusing on the
objective truth of the faith, he stressed that it must be true to the individual or it is not
true at all. Faith “that” something was true was surpassed by faith “in” something.
“But the above definition for truth is an equivalent expression for faith. Without
risk there is no faith. Faith is precisely the contradiction between the infinite passion
of the individual’s inwardness and the objective uncertainty. If I am capable of
grasping God objectively, I do not believe, but precisely because I cannot do this I
must believe. If I wish to preserve myself in faith I must constantly be intent upon
holding fast the objective uncertainty, so as to remain out upon the deep, over seventy
fathoms of water, still preserving my faith.” [ Kierkegaard’s Concluding Unscientific
Postscript, trans. by David F. Swenson (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1963),
p. 182.]
Now we certainly don’t want to demean the importance of faith. In fact, we often cite
the phrase of Augustine, “I believe in order that I may understand.” Also, logical
arguments are certainly not the basis of religious commitment. However, fideism has the
right answers for the wrong reasons. We can’t begin by assuming that God exists and has
revealed Himself in the Bible and works in the lives of His people. Those are the very
things that the unbeliever questions.

The main problem is that fideism doesn’t recognize the difference between belief in
and belief that. Evidence and logical proofs can assist us toward belief that God exists,
the Bible is His Word, etc., but they cannot make us commit our lives to those truths.
Commitment is belief and trusting in the Lord. Fideists only see the latter and overlook
the need for the former. Hence, they make no distinction between the basis of belief in
God (the truth of His Word) and the support or warrant for that belief. They require men
to believe in God without allowing them to first understand that there is a God to be
believed (see Heb. 11:6 ).
Besides, if faith alone is the only way to know truth, why not have faith in the Koran
or the Book of Mormon? Fideism doesn’t really attempt to justify any beliefs, so we
could simply believe anything that we wanted. The net result is that fideism really makes
no truth claims. It has to offer some way to test truth before it can make a truth claim.
Since it doesn’t have any test for truth, it can’t really make any claim to be true. It isn’t
even in the marketplace pushing its claims as true. Now if someone does begin to offer
some explanation or defense of why he is a fideist, then he has ceased to be one. The
minute he offers anything other than, “Believe it,” as support for his position, he has
stopped being a fideist and begun using justifiable beliefs. Either fideism is making no
truth claims or it is self-defeating. In either case, it cannot answer the question of how we
know about God.
The final view says that we can know some things about God. The other views are either
inconsistent or self-defeating. This one stands. We can’t know everything (rationalism),
for there is no way that a finite mind can comprehend all of an infinite being. But we do
know something because agnosticism is self-defeating. This is a reasonable and realistic
view. But the question remains. How do we know what we know about God? And that is
the last question we have to consider.
We can know what we know about God because thought applies to reality. In that
context, knowledge is possible. If thought does not apply to reality, then we can know
nothing. Logic is a necessary presupposition of all thought. Without logic (the laws of
thought), we can’t even think. But is it only a presupposition? How do we know that
logic applies to reality? We know it because it is undeniable.
Now this gets us back to those self-evident first principles that we mentioned earlier.
Don’t let that scare you. You can understand Winnie-the-Pooh, can’t you? Well, Pooh
had an adventure that illustrates how self-evident principles work. He was walking
through the forest when he came to Rabbit’s house.
So he bent down, put his head into the hole, and called out: “Is anybody at home?”
There was a sudden scuffling noise from inside the hole, and then silence.
“What I said was, ‘Is anybody home?’ “ called out Pooh very loudly.
“No!” said a voice; and then added, “You needn’t shout so loud. I heard you quite
well the first time.”
“Bother!” said Pooh. “Isn’t there anybody here at all?”
Winnie-the-Pooh took his head out of the hole, and thought for a little, and he
thought to himself, “There must be somebody there, because somebody must have said
‘Nobody.’ “
See, it’s that simple. We’ve been doing it together all through the book.

A selfevident principle is one that cannot be denied without assuming that it is true in the
process of the denial. Rabbit’s statement is really the reverse of this. It’s self-defeating,
and you have seen that word several times in this chapter. If you have to assume that a
statement is true in order to deny it, it is actually undeniable. First principles, which are
the starting point of all truth and the foundation of all thought, are these kind of
Logic applied to reality is a key example. Now all logic can be reduced to one single
axiom—the law of noncontradiction. This law says that no two opposite statements can
both be true at the same time in the same sense. Logicians usually simplify that to A is
not non-A. If we try to deny that, we get, “Two contradictory statements can be true,” or
“A is not [not non-A].” Both of these statements have a problem. They assume what they
are trying to deny. In the first, it still assumes that there can be truth without the law of
noncontradiction. But if opposites can be true then there is no difference between true
and false, so this statement cannot be true, as it claims to be. The symbolic form does the
same thing by clinging to the idea that A is still identifiable from anything else. The law
of noncontradiction cannot be denied because any denial assumes that opposites cannot
be true, and that is exactly what is being denied. So we find that the basis of logic is an
undeniable first principle.
But the statement, “Logic applies to reality,” is also undeniable. To say that logic
does not apply to reality, you have to make a logical statement about it. But if it takes a
logical statement to deny logic, then your actions defeat the purpose of your words.
Either way, logic must apply to reality. And if logic applies to reality, then we can use it
to test truth claims about reality.

2 A. A. Milne, Winnie-the-Pooh (New York: Dutton, 1961), p. 24. But let’s back up. Why do there have to be some self-evident, undeniable first principles? As we said before, agnosticism is self-defeating. We do know something.
And we know that it is impossible for every truth claim to be dependent on another truth
so that an infinite regress develops. Therefore, there must be some truths that stand all by
themselves and don’t need any further justification. We can’t get behind them or “see
through” them to find out why they are like that. That is why they are called first
principles—they have no other principles before them. It’s not that they are without
justification; rather, they justify themselves by being undeniable.
Really, we can recognize that these ideas are self-evident by intuition, without having
to test them by attempting to deny them. But sometimes we don’t understand what they
really mean, and the denial test brings this out.

In other words, sometimes they are selfevident in themselves, but not to us because we don’t understand them well enough. That
explains why these truths are not universally accepted and why we sometimes have to
examine them to see that they are undeniable.
What are some self-evident truths? We can find examples in every area of thought.
Without attempting an explanation, here are a few. All of these have been used at least
once in this book. See if you can recognize them as you use the book.

I. Self-evident propositions about logic
A. Law of noncontradiction (A is not non-A).
B. Law of identity (A is A).
C. Law of excluded middle (either A or non-A).
D. Laws of valid inference.
II. Self-evident propositions about knowledge
A. Something can be known.
B. Opposites cannot both be true.
C. Everything cannot be false.
III. Self-evident propositions about existence
A. Something exists (e.g., I do).
B. Nothing cannot produce something.
C. Everything that comes to be is caused. These principles become the foundation for all knowledge. From this point,logic and evidence can confirm that God exists and that Christ is His Son. Truth has an absolute
foundation in undeniable first principles and it can be tested through logical means
because it ultimately corresponds to reality. Christianity claims to be true and it bids all to
come in and dine at the table of truth.



Errors of Bart Ehrman


This is and index for the articles on Will Kinney’s website for defending the King James Bible at

To stay on this index for the articles, right click on a link and select “open in new tab”, as the hyperlink on the articles is not functioning automatically.

The articles are divided by Biblical reference (Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, etc…); then by article title, Textual Issues, and then articles dealing with specific authors (i.e. James White).


If you are searching for a particular word or  term, use the control/F key (press at the same time) and type  in the word in the upper right corner when the box pops up, and then each word will be highlighted. Use the up/down arrow key to find the word/term.

Some of these articles are all under one topic on Will’s site, so once you get to the website you may need to scroll down that section until you find the topic.

*DISCLAIMER* The articles and views in this index are solely those of its author, Will Kinney. Do Right Christians does not necessarily agree with nor endorse all of the theological views that are beyond the defense of the King James Bible by Mr Kinney. We consider Mr. Kinney a dear friend, but do not necessarily agree with all of his doctrinal views.

You Tube Videos

Will Kinney, Jack McElroy and David Daniels KJV Defense Playlist

Youtube videos and King James Defense

Will Kinney Interview With Shawn Cahill


Genesis – a Comparative Study – “Yea, hath God said…?” 

Genesis 1:6-8 “the firmament” 

Genesis 1:28 Replenish or Fill? 

 Genesis 4:21 Organ, Pipe, Flute, Harp, Horn or Instruments of music? 

Genesis 22:1 Did God “Tempt” Abraham?

Genesis 22:8 “God will provide HIMSELF a lamb for a burnt offering” 

 Genesis 24:47 “earring upon her face” or “a nose ring in her nose”?

Genesis 25:16 of Castles and Nations 

Genesis 36:24 “found mules, water or hot springs?” NKJV is wrong again 

Genesis 49:6 “Digged down a wall” or “hamstrung an ox”?

 What About Foreign Language Bibles? Romans 7:6 that being dead; Genesis 50:20 ye thought… God meant


Exodus – the Israelites “borrowed” of the Egyptians 

Exodus 12:40 – How Long Were They in Egypt? KJB is Right

 Exodus 20:13 Thou Shalt Not KILL 

Exodus 34 & 2 Cor. 3 Moses and the veil 

Phileo vs Agape; Numbers 11:25 “did not cease”

Numbers 22 Why was God Angry with Balaam? 


2 Peter 3:10 and the Merry Go Round of Modern Textual Criticism 

Grove or Asherah pole? Dt. 16:21


 Bible Babel in the Book of Judges

Judges 14:15 Samson’s riddle within a riddle 

Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness – Judges 16:13; 1 Samuel 14:41;  2 Samuel 13:21, 34 and 2 Samuel 14:30 examples 

1 Samuel

1 Samuel 13:1 Are Some of God’s Words Lost? 

1 Samuel 13:21 “a file” a “pim” or “two-thirds of a  shekel”?

1 Samuel 6:19-50,070 or 70?; John 19:39 NIV 

Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness – Judges 16:13; 1 Samuel 14:41;  2 Samuel 13:21, 34 and 2 Samuel 14:30 examples 

2 Samuel

Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness – Judges 16:13; 1 Samuel 14:41;  2 Samuel 13:21, 34 and 2 Samuel 14:30 examples 

2 Samuel 14 Does God Take Away Life? NASB, NKJV, NIV Blunder; Luke 24 Which Bible is Inspired? 

2 Samuel 15:7 – “after 40 years” or “after 4 years” Hebrew text corrupted?

“He cut them with saws” or “He put them to work with saws”? 2 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3 

Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? – 2 Samuel 21:8 Michael or Merab?  Is the Hebrew text wrong?

2 Samuel 21:19 Who Killed Goliath? 

2 Samuel 23:8 and 1 Chronicles 11:11 – Is there a contradiction? 

1 Kings

How many baths did the molten sea contain? The KJB is right and modern versions are not. 1 Kings 7:26  (2000) and 2 Chronicles 4:5 (3000)

1 Kings 20:38 ashes upon his face;

1 Kings 22:38 “washed his armour” or “while the harlots bathed” NKJV Nonsense

1 Chronicles

“He cut them with saws” or “He put them to work with saws”? 2 Samuel 12:31 and 1 Chronicles 20:3 


The Census of Ezra 2 & Nehemiah 7 


Bible Babel in the book of Nehemiah 

The Census of Ezra 2 & Nehemiah 7 


Bible Babel in Job – a comparative study 

Job 7:20 A Burder To Myself

Job 14:3 Me, Him, or Them? *New*

Job 15:23 He Wandereth Abroad For Bread..

Job 16:20 My Friends Scorn Me

Job 42:6 “Wherefore I Abhor Myself” *NEW*


Psalms #2 How Different the Versions! 

Psalms #3 How Different the Versions! 

Psalms #5 How Different the Versions! 

Psalm 8:5 Lower than the Angels, or a little lower than God? 

Answering Doug Kutilek’s anti-Preservation in Psalm 12 

Psalm 29:9 Maketh The Hinds to Calve

Psalm 46 and the alleged Shakespeare connection


Psalm 56:2 O Though Most High

Psalm 74:8 the  synagogues of God; Psalm 77:2 my sore ran in the night 

Psalm 121:1, Doug Kutilek and the NKJV 

Psalm 138:2 “magnified thy word ABOVE all thy name.”

Psalm 145 – whole verse missing? 


Bible Babel in Proverbs 

Prov 29:21 He shall have him become his son at length

1 Peter 3:1 conversation; Pro.14:9 fool make a mock at sin 

Proverbs 30:31 (Scroll Down To “The Catholic Connection”)


Ecclesiastes 8:10 – the wicked “were forgotten” or “were praised”?

Ecclesiastes – a Comparative Study


 Isaiah – a Comparative Study 

A Comparative Study of the Various Versions in the Book of Isaiah

Isaiah 5:17

Isaiah 10:27

Isaiah 9:3 KJB – “Thou hast multiplied the nation, and NOT increased the joy

Isaiah 13:15 James Price’ “Indisputable Error”

Isaiah 26:18

 Isaiah 38:8 & 2 Kings 20:11 “sun dial” or “stairway”?

Does God Create Evil? Isaiah 45:7 

Isaiah 48:1 Waters, Loins, or Seed?


Jeremiah 8:8 the pen of the scribes is in vain 

Jeremiah 27:1 Jehoiakim or Zedekiah? – 2 Samuel 21:8 Michael or Merab?  Is the Hebrew text wrong?

Jeremiah 31:3 “Unto ME”, “Unto HIM”, “Unto THEM, “Unto US” or “To Israeil”? *NEW*


Lamentations 1:7 “did mock at her sabbaths” or “her downfall” 

Lamentations 3:22 Many Modern Texts Reject the Hebrew “that we are not consumed” *NEW*


Was God Deceived?! NASB blunder; Eze.14:9 God sends deception 

Ezekiel 24:17 Bind the Tire

Ezekiel 29:7 Hebrew, Greek or Syriac? 

Ezekial 45:1 and 48:9 Incompetent Buffoons Giving Today’s Modern Perversions  *NEW*


Daniel – a Comparative Study 

Daniel 3:25 “the Son of God” or “a son of the gods”?

Daniel 9:21 Do Angels Fly?

Daniel 9:26 Messiah Cut off BUT NOT FOR HIMSELF


Hosea – a Comparative Study 

Hosea 3:1 “flagons of wine” or “raisin cakes”? 

Hosea 13:14 “I will redeem them from death…REPENTANCE SHALL BE HID FROM MINE EYES” – A Comforting Promise or a Threat?


Joel 3:21 Hebrew or Syriac Read *NEW*


Amos 4:4 Three years; 1 Sam. 5:9 emerods 


Micah 5:2; Hebrews 2:11 Does Christ have an origin? 



Matthew 1:23 and Isaiah 7:14 “a virgin” “the virgin” “The Virgin” or “a (the) young woman”?

Matthew 1:25 “her FIRSTBORN son” – Luke 1:28 “Blessed art thou among women” – Is your bible a Catholic Bible?

Matthew 5:22 “without a cause” Did Jesus Sin When He Got Angry?

Matthew 6:7 Vain Repetitions and the Modern Versions *NEW*

Matthew 6:13 & Luke 11:2-4 The Lord’s Prayer – Is your bible a “Catholic” bible? 

Is Matthew 23:14 Scripture or not? 

Matthew 12:40 “the belly of the whale, the big fish or the sea monster”? 

Matthew 12:40 Was Jonah swallowed by a whale, a fish or a sea monster? 

John Baptist – Matthew 14:8; Luke 7:20

Matthew 17:21 “Howbeit this kind goeth not out but by prayer and fasting.”

Matthew 21:7 How many donkeys did Jesus sit on? 

Mat.23:24 Strain AT a Gnat; 1 Tim.2:9 shamefacedness 

Matthew 24:3; 28:20 end of World or Age? 

Matthew 23:37 How Often Would I Have Gathered 

“his branch” or “her branch” in Mat. 24:32 & Mk. 13:28 

When did Judas get paid? Matthew 26:15 

Matthew 27:24 The Blood of THIS JUST PERSON

Matthew 27:44 cast in teeth; Mt. 14:9 oaths sake 

Matthew 28:6 Come See

Matthew 28:19 Matthew 28:19 “TEACH all nations” or “MAKE DISCIPLES of all nations”?


Gospel of Mark – a Modern Version Mix-up 

Mark 9:18 “Pineth Away” (scroll down to “PINETH AWAY”)

Mark 9:44-46 Inspired Scripture or Not? 

Mark 6:22 Daughter of Herodias or … *NEW*

 Mark 10:24 “Children, how hard it is FOR THEM THAT TRUST IN RICHES to enter into the kingdom of God.”

Mark 10:24 Terribly Hard and Difficult by Marty Shue *NEW*

Mark 15:28 “And the scripture was fulfilled, which saith, And he was numbered with the transgressors.”


Luke 1:35 “Thing”

Is “cousin” wrong in Luke 1:36? 

Luke 2:14 “Good will toward men” Or Vatican Version “men of good will”? 

Luke 3:36 Who was Cainan & the LXX? 

Luke 8:43-45 And the Silly “Science” of Modern Textual Criticism -“which had spent all her living upon physicians”; Luke 9:54-56 “ye know not what spirit ye are of..Son of man came not to destroy”;Luke 10:1,17 – 70 or 72? Luke 11:11 “if a son shall ask bread”

Luke 8:43 How the Scholarship Game is Played

Matthew 6:13 & Luke 11:2-4 The Lord’s Prayer – Is your bible a “Catholic” bible? 

Luke 17:9 I Trow Not; Luke 18:12 all that I POSSESS 

Luke 24 and the “science of textual criticism” in action

Luke 14:10 have worship; Lk 2:1-3 Taxing or Census? 

Luke 17:36 Is it inspired Scripture or not? 

Luke 23:17 For of Necessity…Is it Scripture Or Not *New 4/2/13*

Luke 23:42 


John 1:12 As Many As Received Him 

John 1:18 the only begotten Son 

John 3:13 “…even the Son of man WHICH IS IN HEAVEN.”

Answering the Bible critics on John 3:34 “God giveth not the Spirit by measure unto him.” 

John 5:3-4 – the troubling of the water – Is it Scripture? 

 John 5:44 the honour that cometh from God only

1 Samuel 6:19-50,070 or 70?; John 19:39 NIV 

John 7:8-10 Did Jesus Lie?

John 8:6 “as though he heard them not.” 1 John 3:16 “the love OF GOD”

John 14:2 in my Father’s house are many MANSIONS 

John 19:14 “about the sixth hour” – a Contradiction? 


Act 3:19 times of refreshing; 7:20 Moses was exceeding fair 

 Acts 5:30 slew and hanged on a tree

Acts 8:37; 24:6-8; 28:29 Scripture or Not?

Acts 7:59 Calling On God

 Acts 9:5-7 Is it inspired Scripture or not? Acts 7:20 exceeding fair 

Acts 9:7 & 22:9 Did they hear a voice or not hear a voice?

Easter is Correct in Acts 12:4

Acts 12:25 the Devil is in the Details 

Acts 13:20 blind scholars 

Acts 13:33 this day have I begotten thee 

Acts 14:12 Jupiter and Mercurius or Zeus and Hermes?

Acts 15:18 Known Unto God Are All His Works..

Acts 17:22 superstitious or religious? bowels, pisseth, bastards 

Acts 19:2 and Ephesians 1:13 – Answering the Bible Critics 

Acts 19:9 DIVERS were hardened, and believed not 

 Acts 19:20 “mightily grew the word of GOD

Acts 19:35 Diana or Artemis? Jupiter, Zeus or Heaven? 

Acts 19:37 robbers of churches; 19:35 Diana or Artemis? 

Acts 20:28 GOD’S BLOOD 

 Acts 28:13 We Fetched a Compass; 1 Tim5:4 Nephews 

Acts 28:29 


Romans 3:25-26; 5:11; 7:15 Atonement; remission of sins;  him that believeth; I allow not

James White discussing Romans 6:17 

Phil. 3:20 our Conversation is in heaven; Romans 7:6 that being dead 

 What About Foreign Language Bibles? Romans 7:6 that being dead; Genesis 50:20 ye thought… God meant

 Deity of Christ Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:

Romans 14:12

1 Corinthians

Notes on 1 Corinthians showing the Catholic influence in the ESV, NIV, NASB and NKJV 

1 Cor. 4:4 nothing BY myself; Ps.138:2 Magnified Thy Word ABOVE All Thy Name

1 Corinthians 11:24 My Body which is Broken for You; 1 Timothy 1:4 Godly Edifying 

I Corinthians 11:29 “eateth and drinketh UNWORTHILY

GOD FORBID; 1 Cor. 16:2 God prospered him 

2 Corinthians

2 Corinthians 2:17 Corrupt or Peddle the word of God?

2 Corinthians 5:14 “one died for all” 

2 Cor.6:12 hard to understand?;1 Cor 14:4 unknown tongue

2 Corinthians 11:3 “the simplicity that is in Christ” or “your sincere and pure devotion to Christ”? 


Galatians 2:21 “Frustrate”

Galatians 3:24 “Schoolmaster”

The Root of All Evil 1 Tim.6:10; how large a letter Gal.6:11 


Ephesians and Textual Criticism In Action *NEW*

 Ephesians 3:9 “God, who created all things BY JESUS CHRIST”


Textual Studies in Philippians 

Philippians 2:6-7 not robbery, no reputation 

Phil. 3:20 our Conversation is in heaven; Romans 7:6 that being dead 


Colossians – eenie, meenie, miney, moe 

Colossians 3:6 Wrath of God on the Children of Disobedience *New*

1 Timothy

     1 Timothy 1:4 “godly edifying”

1 Timothy 2:3-5 Who Will Have All Men to be Saved 

1 Timothy 3:16 “GOD was manifest in the flesh” or the Vatican Versions “He”? 

1 Timothy 4:10 the Saviour of all men, specially of those that believe 

The Root of All Evil 1 Tim.6:10; how large a letter Gal.6:11 

1 Timothy 6:20 – Is the word “science” wrong in the King James Bible?

 Acts 28:13 We Fetched a Compass; 1 Tim5:4 Nephews 

2 Timothy

2 Timothy 2:15 “Study”, “be diligent” or “do your best”?

2 Timothy 3:16 Inspiration of God or God Breathed? 


 Deity of Christ Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:

“Heretic” or “A Divisive Person”? =Satan’s master Deception in the Modern Versions  Titus 3:10 


The Book of Hebrews – a Comparative Study 

Hebrews 2:9 “taste death for every man”

Hebrews 2:17 Reconciliation or Propitiation? *NEW*

Micah 5:2; Hebrews 2:11 Does Christ have an origin? 

Hebrews 3:16 “Some did provoke; howbeit NOT ALL” – KJB is right. The NKJV, ESV, NIV, NASB are wrong.

 Hebrews 4:3 “IF they shall enter into my rest”

 Hebrews 4:8 Jesus or Joshua? 

Hebrews 6:6 “IF they shall fall away…” The “if” clauses – Are they “in the Greek?” 

Hebrews 9:26 “end of the world” or “end of the age” Is the KJB in error?

The Profession of our Faith Hebrews 10:23


 James 4:5 the spirit that dwelleth in us lusteth to envy 

1 Peter

1 Peter – Shifting Sands of Scholarship 

1 Peter 1:2 elect according to the foreknowledge of God 

1 Peter 3:1 conversation; Pro.14:9 fool make a mock at sin 

1 Peter 2:2 and the Vatican Versions – “desire the sincere milk of the word that ye may grow thereby” 

1 Peter 2:9 “a peculiar people” 

2 Peter

 Deity of Christ Romans 9:5; Titus 2:13; 2 Peter 1:

2 Peter 2:1 Denying the Lord that Bought Them 

2 Peter 3:10 and the Merry Go Round of Modern Textual Criticism 

Grove or Asherah pole? Dt. 16:21

2 Peter 3:12 HASTING unto…day of God 

1 John

1 John 2:2 for the Sins of the Whole World 

1 John 3:9 He CANNOT SIN 

1 John 3:16 Hereby Perceive We

John 8:6 “as though he heard them not.” 1 John 3:16 “the love OF GOD”

 1 John 5:7 These three are one

Who Rules the World – God or Satan? 1 John 5:19

2 John

2 John 10-11 Is the expression “GOD SPEED” and error in the King James Bible?


Revelation 1:8-11 “I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the end, the first and the last.”

Revelation 5:9-10 “Redeemed US and WE shall reign” 

Revelation 6:8 a Pale horse or a Green horse? 

Revelation Chapter 13 and The Bible Babble Buffet

Revelation 15:3 king of saints, nations or ages? Comparing the so called “oldest and best mss.” in Revelation 

James White and Revelation 16:5 “O Holy One” or “and shalt be”?

Revelation 17:4 “filthiness of her fornication” -Did Erasmus “invent a word”?

Revelation 17:6 “and I wondered with great ADMIRATION” 

Revelation 17:8 “the beast that was, and is not, and YET IS” 

Revelation 18:20 “ye holy apostles and prophets”

Revelation 19:8 the Fine Linen is the Righteousness of saints

Revelation 22:14 Blessed are they that DO his  commandments

Revelation 22:17 Whosoever Will 

Revelation 22:19 Book of Life or Tree of Life? 


Articles by Title

An Ex- KJV’s Loopy Logic  

The “Archaic” Language of KJB; is “ship” wrong”? 

 Are King James Bible believers “a Cult” or “Idolaters”?

 Are the words “CHURCH” and ‘BISHOP’ wrong?

Alleged Archeological errors in KJB 

Answering the Typical Anti-King James Bible Only Sites

“any that pisseth against the wall”

 Bible Babel Buffet part 1 

Bible Babel Buffet part 2 

Bible Babel Buffet part 3 

 Bible Babel Buffet part  4 

Bible Babel in Proverbs 

A Biblical Explanation of the Doctrine of Justification 

Blunders in the NASB, NKJV, NIV, Holman 

Bowels and Bible Mockers

 “By and by” versus “the-by-and-by”

The Bible is NOT the inspired and inerrant words of God 

 Can a Translation be Inspired?

Can God repent? 

The Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy = just more mumbo jumbo signifying NOTHING 

Catholics And the King James Bible

The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco 

The Deficiencies of the Geneva Bible 

Devils or Demons? 

Did Jesus Tell Them to Take a Staff or Not? 

Do Ghosts Exist? Modern Versions say Yes 

Don’t Go on Safari with a NKJV Translator 

#1.  “Do you elevate the English of the KJB above the Hebrew and the Greek?#2. Why did you Insult me?” 

The Eternal Only Begotten Son 

The Ever Changing NASB’s 

 The English Standard Versions 2001, 2007 =Just Another Vatican Version

Every Man for Himself Bible Versionism

Facebook Discussion with a Modern Version User

Fornication or Immorality? 

Gender Inclusive Versions 

God Save the King 

God’s Persistent Historical Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth in the King James Bible  

The Greek Expert Who Lost His Inerrant Bible 

Hell and Damnation in the King James Bible 

“Heretic” or “A Divisive Person”? =Satan’s master Deception in the Modern Versions  Titus 3:10 

The Historic Confessions support the KJB position 

The Holman Christian Standard Bible 

Holy Ghost, holy spirit in the Holy Bible 

How Many Stalls – 40,000 or 4,000?

How old was Ahaziah, 22 or 42? 

How old was Jehoiachin 8 or 18?

How to Destroy Messianic Prophecies 

The Infallibility of Scripture – are you a Bible believer or a Bible agnostic? 

Is Bottles an inaccurate word in the KJB? 

Is “charity” an error in the KJB? 

 Is It True That “All Bible Versions Are 99.5% the Same”?

Is the NKJV the Inerrant Words of God?

Is the word “testament” incorrect?

Italicized Words in the King James Bible


John MacArthur – Pastor with NO Infallible Bible 

Keep My words” versus “Obey My teaching

King James Bible believers are “proud and arrogant”??? 

Is King James Bible Onlyism Scriptural? 

The Latchet of Whose Shoes 

The LORD smelled a sweet savour 

Lucifer or Morning Star? 

Many Modern Versions Degrade the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ in Many Way – A Verse Comparison Study

Meat, Flesh and Food 

Modern Versions Teach Pride as a Virtue 

Modern Versions Teach Racism 

Misusing the “Variety of Translations” quote

My, How times have changed!  What “bible scholars” were saying 50 years ago about the liberal RSV 

The NIV’s Missing 64,000 words – Fact or Fiction? 

NKJV Bible Babel in Proverbs 

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 2 

The NKJV is a Poor Substitute for the True Bible 

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions Reject the Hebrew  – Part Two

NKJV vs KJB Chronicles, Ezra, Nehemiah 

 NKJV Word Changes 

“No Bible is my final authority. GOD is!”

No Doctrines Are Changed? 

Of Seraphims and Cherubims 

Perverted Doctrines in the Modern Versions 

Psalms #1 How Different the Versions! 

Psalms #4 How Different the Versions! 

“Reins”, “heart”, “mind” or “emotions”? 

Respecter of Persons or No Partiality? 

Sabbath Day, Sabbaths, Weeks?

Satan’s Religion of Works and the modern versions 

Satyrs, Dragons, Unicorns and Cockatrices 

Servants or Slaves? 

SEVENTEEN Indisputable, Universally Recognized Errors in the King James Bible 

The Spirit Itself

Seven or Three Years of Famine? 


Thee and Ye -Why more accurate and should be kept

The Typical Bible Agnostic Response

True Bible or False bible? 

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB are the new “Vatican Versions”

Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASBs are the new “Vatican Versions” Part Two 


#3. “Unfeigned Faith”# 4. Only Saved if use the KJV?” 

“The very meanest translation is still the word of God”

Vials or Bowls in the book of Revelation? 

Was there a perfect Bible before the King James Holy Bible?

 What about the word “bastard” in the King James Bible?

What About Those Printing Errors in 1611? 

What about that archaic word “prevent”? 

What about the English word “corn”? 

What About the NIV 2011 Old Testament? 

What About the New NIV 2011?

What About Young’s ‘literal’ Translation? 

What Happens if you are Not King James Bible only? 

What Muslims are saying about our Bible 

When the NEW King James Bible departs from the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible. 

Where do you think the Bible Version Issue is headed?

Where was the word of God before 1611? 

The Whore of Babylon = the Catholic Church

Why do you King James Bible only people “Cause Divisions” and ‘Attack’ the word of God? 

Why was the Apocrypha in the early King James Bible? 

“Would to God” – Another alleged ‘error’ bites the dust 

 Wrong Numbers in the Modern Versions 

You Better Hope your Surgeon is not a Modern Versionist 

700, 1700 or 7000 Horsemen?

TEXTUAL ISSUEStextus-receptus

The Fickle Nature of Textual Criticism in the Book of Romans

The Fickle Nature of Textual Criticism Rev 13:10

 Does the King James Bible depart from the Hebrew Texts? 

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 1 

NIV, NASB, ESV, NET and other Vatican Versions  reject Hebrew texts Part 2 

 NO LXX – the Fictitious Use of Septuagint 

The Old Latin versions and the KJB 

The Oldest and Best Manuscripts? 

Scatterbrained Septuagint Silliness – Judges 16:13; 1 Samuel 14:41;  2 Samuel 13:21, 34 and 2 Samuel 14:30 examples 

The So-called “Science” of Textual Criticism – Romans through Revelation 

 The So-called “Science” of Textual Criticism. Science or Hocus-Pocus?  Gospels through Acts

The Texts behind the King James Bible – Is the Byzantine Text Late? 

Neesings, Habergeons and Leasing 

Textual Variations Between Reformation and New Vatican Versions From Rev 21

Tyndale, the Textus Receptus or the King James Bible? 

Serpent & Eve

Articles Debunking Authors

Bart Ehrman

Bart Ehrman “Misquoting Jesus” – the Road to Apostasy 

Dan Wallace

Dan Wallace Is A Nut

Doug Kutilek

Answering Doug Kutilek’s anti-Preservation in Psalm 12  

 E mail exchange with Bible Agnostic Doug Kutilek

Psalm 121:1, Doug Kutilek and the NKJV 

Harold Eberle

Clown Bible Corrector

James Price

A Bible Believer’s Response to James Price’s book King James Onlyism – a New Sect 

Isaiah 13:15 James Price’ “Indisputable Error”

James White

James White’s “inferior texts” Jude 4 

James White’s Shell Game 

Blind James White Acts 10:11; Isaiah 19:10 ponds for fish 

Godhead or Deity? Is James White right?Galatians 3:24 Schoolmaster 

James White – the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions 

Answering James White’s Question – Which KJV is the infallible words of God?

James White – A Response to his Radio Program

James White discussing Romans 6:17 

James White and Revelation 16:5 “O Holy One” or “and shalt be”?

The Turtle Observed Pineth Away – James White Follies 

Mark 9:18 “Pineth Away” (scroll down to “PINETH AWAY”)

Rick Norris

A King James Bible Believer’s Response to Rick Norris’ book ‘The Unbound Scriptures’ 

Josh Ratliff

 King James Bible Debate with Josh Ratliff

Christopher Peterman, the claimed founder of the Do Right BJU Facebook, whose Facebook status avows that he is agnostic,  posted a conversation attributed to God that reads as follows:

Bros before hoes — from the Facebook page of God himself
NEW COMMANDMENT: Thou shalt understand that the Bible was written by man and it is silly.
Photo: NEW COMMANDMENT: Thou shalt understand that the Bible was written by man and it is silly.
Above this comment, he writes “Bros before hoes”, ( which is a common slang term for “whores” that degrades women) and that the conversation comes from the Facebook page of God himself.
The content claims that the Bible is silly, and that God said it was written by monks and sheepherders, and that the Bible is irrelevant.
The Do Right Hyles Anderson Facebook group recently undertook a controversy over a similar blasphemous picture which lead to an exodus of members towards other groups that were more conservative or Christian in nature.
This is just one more example of the Godlessness of the “Do Right” groups from their leaders.