Was Sinaiticus Found In a Trash Can or Not? More Hip & Thigh Nonsense

Posted: September 30, 2013 in King James Only Debate
Tags: , , , , , , ,

By Dr. Elisha Weismann and Dr. James Ach

A recent article by the Pope adoring Fred Butler slandering Chris Pinto follows the logic of James White-among many others-contending that the Codex Sinaiticus was not actually discovered in a trash can as affirmed by “KJVOnlyists”. What is their evidence? From the donut- glaze- saturated keyboard of Butler is written:

Tischendorf’s second return in 1853 to the monastery was unfruitful, but on his third visit in 1859, he took a walk with a young Athenian steward who invited him back to his room for some refreshment. The steward told Tischendorf that he had read the OT in Greek and then revealed to him a bulky parcel wrapped in a red cloth. When he unwrapped it, it contained not only the sheets Tischendorf saw in 1844 that were being used to light fires, it contained some 346 parchments from the same volume.

Quip and Lie (Fred Butler, the author of the Hip and Thigh blog) as most others, conveniently leave out the events that lead up to this red-wrapped bundle of apostate joy. First, they lay emphasis that the Codex was “neatly wrapped” in red cloth, and then secondly, they note that a basket is not the same thing as a garbage can, and wallah, no evidence exists that any part of the Codex was found in a garbage can. Thus essentially, the argument for whether or not the Codex was found in a garbage can comes down to semantics and a little history revision (by deliberately omitting Tischendorf’s own statements regarding how the Codex was found).

Butler has a bad habit of quoting bias sources as well. In one article again slandering Chris Pinto, Butler sites Frederick Kenyon who claimed that Constantine SImonides, who laid claim to the actual authorship of Codex Sinaiticus, was only 15 years old when he claimed to have compiled manuscripts for the transcription of the Codex, and that therefore Simonides could not have possibly had the scholarship necessary at such a young age to perform such a rigorous and pedantic task (although, as a Calvinist, Butler would have no problem with the scholarship of Jonathon Edwards who went to Yale at age 13).  However, Kendrick admitted, as does history, that Simonides was born in 1820, and his first claim to the Codex occurred in 1840. That would have made Simonides 20 years old, not 15. After confronting Fred Butler with this glaring inconsistency, Butler removed the date of Simonides birth year from his article, and indicated no correction, although he still maintains that Simonides was only “a teenager”. Butler defends his usage of “teenager” by claiming Simonides could have been 19, but Butler makes this assertion in support of Kenyon who claimed that Simonides was only 15. Butler cited Kenyon as an authority on the veracity of Simonides claims, but then capitulates and obfuscates on the reliability of Kenyon’s facts.

From Tischendorf’s own testimony he writes the following:

It was in April, 1844, that I embarked at Leghorn for Egypt. The desire which I felt to discover some precious remains of any manuscripts, more especially Biblical, of a date  which would carry us back to the early times of Christianity, was realized beyond my expectations. It was at the foot of Mount Sinai, in the convent of St. Catherine, that I discovered the pearl of all my researches. In visiting the library of the monastery, in the month of May, 1844, I perceived in the middle of the great hall a large and wide basket full of old parchments; and the librarian, who was a man of information, told me that two heaps of papers like this, mouldered by time, had been already committed to the flames. What was my surprise to find amid this heap of papers a considerable number of sheets of a copy of the Old Testament in Greek, which seemed to me to be one of the most ancient that I had ever seen. The authorities of the convent allowed me to possess myself of a third of these parchments, or about forty-five sheets, all the more readily as they were destined for the fire

First of all, how could Tischendorf claim that these were the oldest manuscripts he’d seen without any examination of them first?*. Secondly, the story shows clearly that the manuscripts that were in the basket were there for the purpose of awaiting incineration. If that’s not a “trash can” excuse the puppies for drinking out of the kitten’s milk bowl.

Dean Burgon, who thoroughly debunked the work of Westcott & Hort (whom Butler considers “good godly evangelical scholars”-more on that later) writes,

“We suspect that these two manuscripts are indebted for their preservation, “solely to their ascertained evil character”; which has occasioned that the one eventually found its way, four centuries ago, to a forgotten shelf in the Vatican Library;

“while the other, after exercising the ingenuity of several generations of critical Correctors, eventually got deposited in the wastepaper basket of the Convent at the foot of Mount Sinai.

“Had B and ALEPH been copies of average purity, they must long ago since have shared the inevitable fate of books which are freely used and highly prized; namely, they would have fallen into decadence and disappeared from sight.” The Revision Revised , pg 319.

Even Norman Geisler, who is not only NOT KJVO, but wrote an endorsement for James White’s “The King James Only Controversy” shown on the cover of White’s book writes,

“It was found in the monastery of St. Catherine at Mount Sinai by the German Count Tischendorf, who was living in Prussia by permission of the czar…”On his first visit (1844), he discovered forty-three leaves of vellum, containing portions of the LXX (I Chronicles, Jeremiah, Nehemiah and Esther), in a basket of scraps which the monks were using to light their fires. He secured it and took it to the University Library at Leipzig, Germany. It remains there, known as the Codex Frederico-Augustanus…Geisler & Nix, General Introduction to the Bible, 1968.

Popular KJVO critic, James White, although adamantly denying that the Codex was found in a waste basket, says of the finding of Tischendorf,

Constantin von Tischendorf embarked on a journey to the Middle East in 1844 searching for biblical manuscripts. While visiting the monastery of St. Catherine on Mount Sinai, he noted some scraps of parchment in a basket that was due to be used to stoke the fires in the oven of the monastery. Upon looking at the scraps he discovered that they contained part of the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament.

This was exactly what he was looking for, and so he asked if he could take the scraps to his room for examination, warning the monks that they should not be burning such items. His obvious excitement worried the monks, who became less than cooperative in providing further information about manuscripts at the monastery. King James Only Controversy, pp 32-33

Thus we have clear and convincing evidence that the Codex was FIRST discovered in a basket, and that basket was used to reserve fodder for kindling. Now perhaps White and Butler call fodder for fire from materials one wishes to discard by burning as non-trash, but common sense modern vernacular would have no issues with the term “waste basket”. To offer such criticism merely because the manuscripts were not placed in Glad bags and the “basket” did not have a Flip Wilson lid on it is shear semantic nonsense.

Furthermore, White and Butler, et al, lay emphasis on Tischendorf’s receipt of the REMAINDER of the Codex wrapped in red cloth as evidence that the Codex was not found in a dumpster. However, Tischendorf’s own writings show that he obtained his initial manuscripts directly from the waste basket, and it was only LATER that he gained REMAINING manuscripts that were wrapped in cloth. BUT! where did THOSE manuscripts “wrapped in red cloth” come from?? Again, from Tischendorf’s own testimony relaying what the monk had given him he writes,

 Scarcely had he entered the room when, resuming our former subject of conversation, he said, “And I too have read a Septuagint, i. e., a copy of the Greek translation made by the Seventy;” and so saying, he took down from the corner of the room a bulky kind of volume wrapped up in a red cloth, and laid it before me. I unrolled the cover, and discovered, to my great surprise, not only those very fragments which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket, but also other parts of the Old Testament, the New Testament complete, and in addition, the Epistle of Barnabas and a part of the Pastor of Hermas.

Notice what Tischendorf says about the manuscripts in the red wrapped cloth, “ which, fifteen years before, I had taken out of the basket”. So whatever manuscripts Tischendorf did not obtain 15 years ago from the waste basket, he collected the remainder on this particular visit, and the manuscripts that White and Butler, et al, so vivaciously remind us were “wrapped neatly in red cloth” were themselves TAKEN FROM THE SAME BASKET WHERE TISCHENDORF OBTAINED HIS FIRST MANUSCRIPTS 15 YEARS AGO. 

Oh the lengths that Bible agnostics will go to in defending their beloved Pope and his Jesuit minions.

Butler’s Veneration of Westcott & Hort

In response to a blogger named “Sandy” who asks “So do you really believe there is no counter reformation being led by Jesuits?”, Butler replies,

No, not today, nor in the manner that Chris Pinto describes. You have to consider the fact that a number of men committed to the importance of Sinaiticus are Bible-believing, God-fearing, evangelical Christians who are squarely anti-Catholics. Pinto’s thesis implicates them as either being duped by the Jesuits, which would throw their spiritual discernment into being seriously questioned, or unbelieving Catholic sympathizers who are secretly aiding the Jesuits. Both of those scenarios are patently absurd.

First of all, what a naive imbecile to believe that the Jesuits have no CURRENT plans involving a “counter-reformation”. Let’s not forget that Rome’s current “vicar” is a Jesuit. Sure, Butler and White will tell you that Rome has a few bad doctrines, all short of naming the Pope as an antichrist and the Catholic Church as a CULT. But nevertheless, any casual perusal of the Jesuit Oath reveals that a Jesuit will “to a Jew become a Jew, to a Calvinist a Calvinist, to a Protestant a Protestant”.

The first men “committed to the importance of the Sinaiticus” were Westcott & Hort, who comprised a committee for the “revision” of the King James Version in 1881. The following are the “good godly evangelical” beliefs of Westcott & Hort of which almost all modern Bible translations owe their lineage,

“I reject the word infallibility of Holy Scriptures overwhelmingly.” (Westcott, The Life and Letters of Brook Foss Westcott, Vol. I, p.207).

“Evangelicals seem to me perverted. . .There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, especially the authority of the Bible.” (Hort, The Life and Letters of Fenton John Anthony Hort, Vol. I, p.400)

“He [Jesus Christ] never speaks of Himself directly as God, but the aim of His revelation was to lead men to see God in Him.” (Westcott, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 297).

“(John) does not expressly affirm the identification of the Word with Jesus Christ.”…(Rev. 3:15) might no doubt bear the Arian meaning, the first thing created.”

“”…Have you read Darwin? How I should like to talk with you about it! In spite of difficulties, I am inclined to think it unanswerable. In any case it is a treat to read such a book.”

“But the book which has most engaged me is Darwin. Whatever may be thought of it, it is a book that one is proud to be contemporary with … My feeling is strong that the theory is unanswerable. If so, it opens up a new period.”

I am inclined to think that no such state as Eden (I mean the popular notion) ever existed, and that Adams fall in no degree differed from the fall of each of his descendants, as Coleridge justly argues.

“Further I agree with them [Authors of Essays and Reviews] in condemning many leading specific doctrines of the popular theology … Evangelicals seem to me perverted rather than untrue. There are, I fear, still more serious differences between us on the subject of authority, and especially the authority of the Bible.”

“I confess I have no repugnance to the primitive doctrine of a ransom paid to Satan. I can see no other possible form in which the doctrine of a ransom is at all tenable; anything is better than the doctrine of a ransom to the father.” (Hort, The First Epistle of St. Peter 1:1-2:17, p. 77)

The pure Romanish view seems to be nearer, and more likely to lead to the truth than the Evangelical.” (Hort, Life and Letters, Vol. I, p. 77)

There is OVERWHELMING evidence from the writings of Westcott and Hort themselves as well as their children they had great veneration for Mary and the church of Rome, had heretical views of the deity of Christ, salvation, the inspiration of Scripture, and yet these men are whom White and Butler consider “good godly evangelical” scholars? Even Butler’s favorite Calvinist, Charles Spurgeon wrote of Westcott & Hort,

“With those who treat the Bible as waste paper, and regard the death of Christ as no substitution, we have no desire for fellowship. After the gospel has been found effectual in the eternal salvation of untold multitudes, it seems rather late in the day to alter it; and , since it is the revelation of the all-wise and unchanging God, it appears somewhat audacious to attempt its improvement. When we call up before our mind’s eye the gentlemen who have set themselves this presumptuous task….. Their gigantic intellects are to hatch out the meanings of the Infinite. Hitherto they have not hatched out much worth reading. Their chickens are so much of the Roman breed, that we sometimes seriously suspect that, after all, Jesuitical craft may be at the bottom of this “modern thought”.

But what about Tischendorf’s own beliefs? Tischendorf admittedly claimed to follow in the footsteps of Karl Lachmann**- who was known to reject the inspiration of the Scriptures and was a German philosophical rationalist- and that Tischendorf was a professor within the German universities of whom applied rationalism to the texts of the Bible. Between Tischendorf’s 7th and 8th editions of the Codex were over 8,000 changes to his own manuscripts. Tischendorf did not believe that any English version extant in his time (let alone the KJV) was based on earlier manuscripts, but were all 15th century productions, and thus he did not believe that any inspired or infallible copies of the Bible existed in any language in any version. Butler himself even admits this stating that,

Tischendorf believed the TR, from which the KJV had been translated, was an inadequate text because it was not based upon the “best” manuscripts of the NT.  He believed better manuscripts were waiting to be discovered and their discovery would only serve to refute the skeptics and critics who wrote those trashy novels about the life of Jesus.

So in other words, God was not capable of preserving His word throughout history, and we must all wait for “better” manuscripts which have not yet been discovered to see if we still have the word of God. This is no different from evolutionary thinking, that somehow new evidence will surface to discredit creation, and therefore Christian scientists must stay apprised of all of the archaeological finds of atheists because God forbid they find something that proves there really is no God. Most logical Christians do not need that kind of “evidence”, they believe by faith that there is an Intelligent Designer behind the creation of the universe. It’s too bad this logic doesn’t apply to most Christians when it comes to the preservation of the word of God that we are told to “preach in season and out of season”. We are expected to “reprove, rebuke, exhort with all longsuffering and doctrine” from a plethora of manuscripts that wicked scholars can’t even agree on to verify that we actually have the word of God.

And as Pinto pointed out, and as history attests, Tischendorf was granted quite a liberal audience and attention from not only the Pope of Rome, but many of the Pope’s minions. It doesn’t seem to bother Butler that the Pope would permit such welcome to a supposed Protestant “scholar” all the while burning Protestant “heretics” in the dungeons of Roman monasteries. Why were such exceptions extended to Tischendorf from the Roman Papacy that were CLEARLY not extended to any other Protestant minister?

Ironically, Butler attempts to prove Tischendorf was not “in league” with Rome by citing Rome’s oft attempts to erect a “wall” against Tischendorf’s efforts to peruse the manuscripts more thoroughly. Well then doesn’t that beg the question that if Tischendorf was never able to gain a full examination of the texts that the reliability of his own translations of the Codex should be questionable? The very fact that Codex Sinaiticus has Rome written all over it (in some MSSmss, quite LITERALLY with the Roman Imprimatur stamped on the pages) does not seem to make Butler or any other KJVO critic blink, but then neither does Butler’s own version of events claiming that Tischendorf’s manuscript translation is reliable while at the same time admitting that Tischendorf was not permitted a proper perusal of the underlying texts.

Butler proposes that a few scant quotes cited by James Bentley quoting Tischendorf prove his “orthodoxy”. Tischendorf has never published any clear indication that he was a born again Christian, and there are no clear writings extant of just exactly what his beliefs were which is quite odd for anyone claiming to be Protestant. As prolific a writer as Tischendorf was regarding the Codex, one would think he would have produced a clear treatise on his beliefs. Yet Butler relies on Bentley attempts to use a mere scintilla of quotes from Tischendorf which are no different from the professions of any modern Roman priest to prove Tischendorf was a believer. Butler in defending the “orthodoxy” of Tischendorf, offers only the following quote,

He was passionately determined to refute those who were destroying the faith of the Christian world. Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation. In a pamphlet published in March 1864 Tischendorf wrote, ‘May my writing serve this end: to make you mistrust those novel theories upon the Gospels — or rather, againstthem — which would persuade you that the wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour are founded upon ignorance and deceit.’ [Bentley, 37]

What Catholic priest or even a Jehovah’s Witness would not claim that the Bible contains the “wonderful details which the Gospels give of our gracious Saviour”? Is this a full-proof evidence of fundamental Christian belief? Hardly. Note that Bentley asserts that “Many Christians desperately longed for such a refutation”. A refutation of what? If Tischendorf was a Protestant, then the only refutation “many Christians” were seeking for would be a refutation AGAINST ROME.  Butler claims that Tischendorf was an “evangelical apologist” with absolutely ZERO evidence for such an absurd claim. Tischendorf has absolutely no recorded documentation of refuting any of the heresies extant in his day and thus accordingly, none of these apologetic works are cited by Butler. The only “refutations” that were extant regarding textual evidences were Rome’s disdain over the Textus Receptus and King James Bible. Somehow, Tischendorf supposing to be a Protestant minister, questions the validity of the Protestant Bible from he would naturally have derived any of his Protestant beliefs, begins his search for the “better manuscripts” coincidentally at a CATHOLIC monestary? Also, something that Pinto nor any of his critics have observed, is that not only is it clear that Tischendorf altered the manuscripts, but that monks themselves could have done so in the 15 years between Tischendorf’s initial discoveries, and his return to the monastery on which he obtained the remaining manuscripts wrapped in red cloth. There is clear evidence that that which was wrapped in the red cloth was obtained from the pile of scraps that Tischendorf did not make off with. It begs the question as to why the monks burned any manuscripts at all, and had others wrapped in a red cloth only to remain stagnant and unutilized in a monastery. It is likely that the monks did not know what they were burning, but then once Tischendorf published his first discoveries, and knowing the reception and adulation it was given by the Pope, took the remaining copies, altered them, and then placed them in the red cloth expecting Tischendorf’s return.

Butler’s defense of Tischendorf is inadequate, defies logic and common sense, is often contradictory and often cites as evidence facts not only missing from his own articles but wholly absent from history. The real question is why skeptics such as Butler and White are so quick to vilify Chris Pinto and any other person defending the Textus Receptus or King James Bible over a video that was created that is not specifically in defense of the King James Bible (although Butler MUST paint this label on Pinto in order to classify him as a KJVO so that he can by proxy attach all of his other ridiculous anti- KJVO arguments against anyone that dares lift a hint of criticism against the venerable Tishcendorf, Westcott or Hort). Why go to such extreme lengths to defend such a shady history that follows Tischendorf, Westcott and Hort? Butler dances with sparklers that Pinto can not give absolute proof of a conspiracy, but neither can Butler nor those he cites offer any logical explanation as to why the Roman Catholic Church was so receptive to Tischendorf. Considering that the preponderance of evidence is in favor of the involvement of Rome than against it, it certainly casts great doubt upon the credibility of Butler and his ilk in proffering such a vigorous defense of a “church” they claim to oppose.

I’ll offer my own “conspiracy theory”. Jesuits are known for joining the ranks of their enemies even to the tune of slandering their own religion (Catholics) if it means a greater victory in the long run. Critics like White and Butler will gladly quip “We debate Catholics so we couldn’t possibly be pro-Catholic” as evidence that they would not be likely candidates for Jesuit infiltrators. Their positions on the Catholic church while appearing to cast some of their doctrines in a negative light, are a far cry from labeling the Catholic church for what it really is: a beast from the horns of the dragon straight out of the pits of hell (Revelation 17), that has made every effort to destroy belief in the word of God as the inerrant and preserved revelation of God’s instructions to His church. Just as the Catholic church adopted the “if you can’t kill them [Christians] join them” and made Christianity the state religion of Rome, so too, has the Catholic church maintained that if they can’t destroy the Bible by burning it along with those who translated any anti-Vatican texts, they may as well “join” the legitimate copies of the Bible with amalgamations of corrupted texts, and encourage critics like Butler, White, Nestle, Aland, Norris, Kutilek, Carson, Bryce, Wallace, et al, to help promote their validity. If they are not somehow directly involved with the RCC, they are certainly guilty as co-conspirators in her treachery.

Perhaps Butler’s motivation is the promise of the latest Darth Vader action figure in a package signed by the Pope that he can add to his collection of Star Wars paraphernalia. How any supposed God-fearing Christian could have such adoration for  blatantly occultic Hollywood trash is bewildering.

Edited and Updated by Dr James A, PhD


* From The Forged Origins of the New Testament, Tony Bushby writes,

The revelations of ultraviolet light testing

In 1933, the British Museum in London purchased the Sinai Bible from the Soviet government for £100,000, of which £65,000 was gifted by public subscription. Prior to the acquisition, this Bible was displayed in the Imperial Library in St Petersburg, Russia, and “few scholars had set eyes on it” (The Daily Telegraph and Morning Post, 11 January 1938, p. 3). When it went on display in 1933 as “the oldest Bible in the world” (ibid.), it became the centre of a pilgrimage unequalled in the history of the British Museum.

Before I summarize its conflictions, it should be noted that this old codex is by no means a reliable guide to New Testament study as it contains superabundant errors and serious re-editing. These anomalies were exposed as a result of the months of ultraviolet-light tests carried out at the British Museum in the mid-1930s. The findings revealed replacements of numerous passages by at least nine different editors.

Photographs taken during testing revealed that ink pigments had been retained deep in the pores of the skin. The original words were readable under ultraviolet light. Anybody wishing to read the results of the tests should refer to the book written by the researchers who did the analysis: the Keepers of the Department of Manuscripts at the British Museum (Scribes and Correctors of the Codex SinaiticusH. J. M. Milne and T. C. Skeat, British Museum, London, 1938).


Tischendorf’s first find contained 43 leaflets which he dubbed the Codex Frederico-Augustanus, in dedication to Frederick Augustus of Saxony, a Roman Catholic, married to a Roman Catholic, and buried at Katholische Hofkirche, a Roman Catholic cemetary.

Tischendorf also notes in his first chapter of “When Were Our Gospels Written” (1874) that,

At the same time, the committee of the Religious Tract Society of
Zwickau expressed a desire to circulate this pamphlet, provided it were
recast and adapted for popular use. Although I had many other
occupations, I could not but comply with their request, and without
delay applied myself to the task of revising the pamphlet. I was glad
of the opportunity of addressing in this way a class of readers whom my
former writings had not reached; for, as the real results of my
researches are destined to benefit the church at large, it is right
that the whole community should participate in those benefits.

This popular tract, in the shape in which I now publish it, lacks, I
admit, the simple and familiar style of the usual publications of the
Zwickau Society; but, in spite of this fault, which the very nature of
the subject renders inevitable, I venture to hope that it will be
generally understood. Its chief aim is to show that our inspired
gospels most certainly take their rise from apostolic times, and so to
enable the reader to take a short but clear view of one of the most
instructive and important epochs of the Christian church.

In sitting down to write a popular version of my pamphlet, the Zwickau
Society also expressed a wish that I should preface it with a short
account of my researches, and especially of the discovery of the
Sinaitic Codex, which naturally takes an important place

The “Zwickau prophets,” i.e., Nicholas Storch, Thomas Drechsel, and Mark Stübner, etc., claimed to be prophets of God and to have received revelations directly from God. They were leading an anti-Protestant, anti-Catholic, spiritualistic attempt at communism and anarchy based on a view of taking the millennium by force as prophets. Thomas Münzer (1490–1525) was a radical figure in the Reformation who became a leader in the Peasants’ Revolt of 1524–1525. From this man we get a clear window into all of his associates:

  1. fivepointer says:

    After confronting Fred Butler with this glaring inconsistency, Butler removed the date of Simonides birth year from his article, and indicated no correction, although he still maintains that Simonides was only “a teenager”.

    I did no such thing “after you confronted me” (a mocking tweet about the citation of Kenyon is hardly “confronting”). The post remains as when I first posted it regrading Simonides and his age.

    • drjamesa says:

      There you go again with the childish semantics. “Confronted” could be understood by anyone with a 5th grade education considering I put the link to the tweet on it. Perhaps you need “regrading” (see above):

      CONFRONT: 2. make somebody aware of something: to bring something such as contradictory facts or evidence to the attention of somebody, often in a challenging way.

      Your original post had the date that Simonides was born listed on it, that’s what made me double-check it in the first place. Nevertheless, even if you did not omit this date, and I am mistaken, that makes the case against you even worse. You made your “teenager” assessment in light of Kenyon’s claim that Simonides was only 15 years old. Thus your comment, without any corroboration other than Kenyon cited in your article, proves that you were citing inaccurate information, and that “teenager” was not a reference to the possibility of Simonides being only 19 as you replied in your tweet, but that you believed he was actually 15. If you did not know or have the date listed in your article, on what other premise could you have possibly assumed that Simonides was a “teenager”? Your horns are showing.

  2. fivepointer says:

    I don’t know what you were looking at or what thought you were looking at, I never edited or changed any information regarding Simonides’s age or date of birth from what I originally wrote. Just with the little interaction I have had with you, I notice you have the terrible habit of reading too fast that you miss important details to what you are objecting to.

    • drjamesa says:

      Read my first comment as I added to it in response to your “teenager” assessment.

      Perhaps I read too fast (doubt it since I read English quite a bit slower). But as stated above, if you did not have the date of his birth listed, that only makes the case worse for you. You have a bad habit of citing the works of others without checking their facts first. Furthermore, you are still sticking to your story KNOWING that Kenyon’s facts are inaccurate.

      • fivepointer says:

        Listen. It is this simple. What you wrote above is dishonest. You give your readers this idea that I had written one thing in my article. You then saw it and “confronted” me about it. I then went back to my blog and changed my “error” without noting the change in my article. This never happened. You are totally making that up.

        I still stick by what I wrote because it is what was written in my source whether or not the source was correct or wrong. That being stated, both Kenyon and Merrill, who wrote his book in 1895, claim to cite Simonides’s own testimony that he was 15 when he allegedly produced Sinaiticus. So you have two sources citing another source – the individual in question – as being 15 not 19. I haven’t tracked down all the details regrading the exact testimony of Simonides, but it would not surprise me that he claimed he started his work when he was 15, but ended it four years later after his uncle supposedly died, when he was 19.

      • drjamesa says:

        What I saw, I saw. You are not changing your story, and I’m not changing mine. But, I let your comment stand because I don’t deprive people of the right to offer their side of the story. The fact that you are still tenaciously holding on to facts that are in obvious error shows your integrity (or rather, thereof).

        All your second source proves is that he quoted from the first source without actually corroborating the facts. Simonides was born in 1820. FACT. The first claim given by ALL of even his detractors was 1840. FACT. 1820 + 1840 does not equal 15. FACT. Aside from the fact that neither author you quote gives any citation of Simonides supposed admission, what we DO have are the facts that we CAN cite, and all of those facts say that you all flunked 1st grade math.

        You are also twisting the “facts” (“facts” because they are not actually given). Neither Merrill nor Kenyon offer any source where Simonides claimed to be 15. One author merely assumed that by getting his dates mixed up, and the other author repeated it. (Like they say, history doesn’t repeat itself, historians merely repeat each other.) And I read the entire book by Merrill and you took him entirely out of context (which we will deal with later this week, along with quotes from Tischendorf’s sister that shows how the church of Rome adored Tischendorf). The biggest bang in your entire article about Merrill is a deficiency in the time offered for Simonides death. Wow! That sure settles the entire debate.

        Even your article on “Determining the Antiquity of Manuscripts” shows your willingness to cite anybody merely because they have an antagonist view against anyone that would support a Traditional Text view. The author you cite, B. Harris Cowper (editor) believed in the inspiration of the Apocrypha, and defended the priesthood of the Roman Catholic Church, so your quote only helps that case of Simonides because you have a Roman Catholic defending Tischendorf. You are on a roll when it comes to bogus critics 🙂

  3. Will Kinney says:

    Fred Butler –
    An EX- KJB believer loses his mind

    Fred Butler is a former KJB onlyist who has lost both his Bible and apparently his mind too.

    Fred regularly posts his blogs on the internet and is involved in several Bible discussion boards. He claims to be a former King James Bible only believer who has now “seen the light” and he no longer believes the KJB is the only true Bible.

    Fred now finds himself in the position of being a double-minded man whose thinking and reasoning abilities have become so confused that he can’t even see the absurdity of his own blatant, self-contradictions.

    Sometimes he says he believes in the inerrancy of Scripture, but he doesn’t bother telling us where this Scripture is found. Another time he writes: “Evangelical Christianity holds to inerrancy and believes the scriptures are totally free from errors ONLY in the original autographs.” And then he actually says that ALL the bible versions out there are the inerrant word of God, even though they differ from each other in both texts and meanings in hundreds upon hundreds of places, and he still “corrects” the texts of these ‘inerrant bibles” in numerous places.

    As we shall soon see, Fred has somehow managed to completely redefine the meanings of the words inerrant and infallible. In fact, they don’t mean “without error and 100% true” at all. He just likes to SAY he believes the Scriptures ARE inerrant so he won’t appear to be the unbelieving, self-contradictory, illogical Bible denier that he is.

    Fred has his own home site where he tells us how he once was a KJV onlyist but went to seminary and got exposed to John MacArthur’s ministry, for whom he now works. MacArthur is another man who does not believe that any Bible in any language is the pure and preserved words of God. As for John MacArthur, he is just another “Pastor with No Infallible Bible” – See


    Here is Fred’s homesite http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/articles.html

    Over the years I have had several opportunities to talk to Fred Butler in various internet Bible clubs. Recently our conversations reached a point where I decided I would write an article about Fred’s self-contradictory Biblical position.

    Here are some of our more recent posts: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/versions/message/10305 — In versions@yahoogroups.com, wrote:

    “I reject the KJV as being the only inerrant Bible. I DO, however, BELIEVE THE BIBLE IS INERRANT AND INSPIRED.” (caps are his)

    My response (Will Kinney): “Fred. This has got to be one of the silliest, illogical and most poorly thought out statements a normally intelligent person could make. Does this statement mean that the KJB is one of the inerrant Bibles, and that there are also other inerrant Bibles, even though these other inerrant bibles differ from the KJB in both text and meaning in numerous ways? If the KJB is “one of” the inerrant Bibles, then why do you constantly criticize it?

    If however you meant to say that you do not believe the KJB is the true and inerrant word of God and yet you boldly confess that you believe “The Bible IS inerrant and inspired” (thus using a present tense verb ‘is’ as though it is something that actually exists now in our present day, then why is it that you have never told us exactly what this ‘inerrant Bible’ is called and where we too can get ourselves a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever we might be reading now?

    It seems that when it comes to the Bible version issue, normally intelligent people make some of the dumbest statements. Final Written Authority is not a head issue as much as a heart issue.

    Quit feinting, dodging and posturing and Show us the Book you SAY you believe IS the inerrant Bible. “

    Will Kinney

    Fred Butler responds: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/versions/message/10321

    Fred – “Yes, the KJV is one of those inerrant and infallible Bibles, and no it does not differ with other translations in both text and meaning. KJV apologist want to postulate that the MV are like the Book of Mormon compared to the Bible, that they teach an alternative Christianity. Biblical, orthodox Christianity is revealed, affirmed, and proclaimed in the KJV, the ESV, and even the more liberal RSV. The so-called differences are exaggerated by KJV only proponents. Show me one orthodox doctrine of God, Christ, the sin of man, etc., that is only found in the KJV but missing from the MV.”

    “I happen to like the KJV. I believe it was instrumental in the refining of the English language for its time. My criticisms, to be accurate, are aimed at the likes of you and other individuals who insist that God’s Word is only found in the text of the KJV; that it is infallible in translation so it is in no need of any meaningful revision (the recent easter/passover discussions being an example of what I meanby “meaningful revision”), and who shipwreck the faith of Christians by saying the ESV or what ever other modern translation they happen to benefit from reading and God is using in their lives, are corrupted by heretics. Those are the issues I criticize, not the KJV itself.”

    “Geesh Will, I have told you a gazillion times where you can find an inerrant Bible. In the NKJV, the ESV, the Papua version in Papua New Guinea. Your error is to set up the KJV as the authority from which to compare rather than the preserved word of God found in the Hebrew and Greek textual apparatuses.”

    Answering Fred’s Response.

    Notice Fred’s amazing statements here. He says: “Yes, the KJV is one of those inerrant and infallible Bibles, and no it does not differ with other translations in both text and meaning.”

    So, according to Fred’s new way of thinking, the King James Bible is ONE OF those inerrant Bibles, and he now affirms the NKJV, ESV (and by extension the NASB, RSV, NIV, Holman) Papua version, and probably the Daffy Duck version too are all different varieties of the many “inerrant and infallible Bibles”. Wow. Talk about a turn around from his former KJB only position!

    Then Fred tells us another huge whopper by saying: “No, it does not differ with other translations in both text and meaning.” Has Fred lost his mind as well as his Bible? It is easily documented and quite clear to most children over the age of 5 years old that by simply comparing the various, multiple choice Bible of the Month Club ver$ion$ on the market today that they do differ in both texts and meanings, and this significantly, in hundreds upon hundreds of places.

    Here are just a few examples to look at:

    If you mistakenly think that all bibles are basically the same, I recommend you take a look at this site. It is in two parts, but very easy to read. It shows what is missing in most modern New Testaments.


    I recently came across a blog link where a man made an in depth study of what is missing from the NIV New Testament when compared to the Traditional Greek Text of the James Bible. It appears to be quite complete. Take a look. You will probably be surprised at what you see. Here is the link:


    Some of my own comparative studies to consider:

    Bible Babel – http://brandplucked.webs.com/biblebabel1.htm

    The “science” of textual criticism http://brandplucked.webs.com/scienceoftextcrit.htm

    The Pslams – http://brandplucked.webs.com/howdifpsalms1.htm

    No Doctrines are Changed? – http://brandplucked.webs.com/nodoctrinechanged.htm

    Fred contradicts himself by his own articles.

    Fred shows how he has completely redefined the words ‘inerrant and infallible’ by the very articles he writes. Here are a couple of examples of Fred’s new found thinking in action.

    1 Samuel 13:5 – 30,000 chariots http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb001.html

    Fred: “The second problem in 1 Samuel 13:5 is more significant. The verse reads in the NKJV, “Then the Philistines gathered together to fight with Israel, 30,000 chariots and 6,000 horsemen, and people as the sand which is on the seashore in multitude.”

    The problem is with the extreme number of chariots deployed by the Philistines. Thirty thousand IS WAY TOO MANY CHARIOTS. (Caps are mine) There would not be enough men to drive them, not to mention that historically no ancient, near-eastern army had such a massive number of chariots. Second Chronicles 14:9 records that Zeriah the Ehtiopian maintained an army of a million men, the largest army of men at one time mentioned in scripture, but only had 300 chariots…. I believe this is what we have here in 1 Samuel 13:5. The 30,000 are not the physical chariots, but THE NUMBER OF FIGHTING MEN who would ride in them, or fight along side it.”

    Fred has every right to think what he wants in his efforts to correct the Bible, but you should be aware of a few facts. First of all, there is NO Bible I am aware of that reads “30,000 FIGHTING MEN”, as Fred suggests it should read.

    The NET, NIV and Holman Standard have changed the text to read “3000 chariots”, and then the NIV tells us this number comes from “SOME LXX manuscripts and the Syriac” but the Hebrew reads 30,000”. The Holman Standard says the number 3000 comes from ONE LXX copy and the Syriac, but the Hebrew text reads 30,000. My copy of the LXX reads 30,000 chariots, just like the Hebrew texts. Thirty thousand chariots is also the reading of Jerome’s Latin translation of 382, the Latin Vulgate of 425 A.D., Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Geneva bible 1599, the RV of 1881, the 1901 ASV, the 1995 NASB, the 1982 NKJV, Rotherham’s Emphasized bible 1902, Youngs, the World English Bible, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, the Complete Jewish Bible, the New English Bible 1970, the RSV, NRSV 1989, the 2001 ESV, the French Martin 1744 and French Ostervald 1996, Luther’s German Bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909 and 1995,the Italian Diodati 1649 and the Italian Riveduta 1927, and the Portuguese Almeida.

    Fred also thinks the number of chariots is way too large, but he fails to mention the fact recorded by ALL bible versions in 1 Chronicles 19:7 where the Amonites hired an army of “32,000 chariots”, and not even his NIV changes this number there.

    Though many “bible commentators” call into question the accuracy of this number, yet there are some who do not try to change the preserved Hebrew text, such as Matthew Henry and John Wesley.

    Matthew Henry comments: “Never did the Philistines appear in such a formidable body as they did now, upon this provocation which Saul gave them. We may suppose they had great assistance from their allies,(1 Samuel 13:5 “and people as the sand which is on the sea shore in multitude”) besides 6000 horses, which in those times, when horses were not so much used in war as they are now, was a great body, they had an incredible number of chariots, 30,000 in all: most of them, we may suppose, were carriages for the bag and baggage of so vast an army, not chariots of war.”

    John Wesley likewise comments: “Thirty thousand chariots – Most of them, we may suppose, carriages for their baggage, not chariots of war, though all their allies were joined with them.”

    Luke 3:36 http://www.fredsbibletalk.com/fb023.html

    Fred has also written an article dealing with the name CAINAN found in the genealogy of Christ. Fred asks: “Did God determine to preserve His Word to mankind in only one Bible translation? Has He moved with divine providence in such a way so as to prevent any copyist’s error from slipping into the original language text from which the KJV is translated and kept the final published KJV free from any translational spoilage? I DO NOT BELIEVE SO, and I believe it can be proven with a number of examples. I will limit this study to just one: The name of Cainan found in Luke 3:36.” Fred then goes on to say: “First, no serious scholar researching variants in Luke’s gospel believes this one little name should belong in the text. There is solid, historic precedent for its exclusion. Despite the vid marking, anyone familiar with the papyrus and manuscripts in question omitting the name believe is wasn’t there to begin with. “

    Did you happen to notice the language Fred uses to describe others who likewise do not believe God has preserved His words in any bible in any language? He says: “no serious scholar researching variants in Luke’s gospel believes this one little name should belong in the text”. This is an amazing statement indeed.

    The name Cainan is found in Luke’s gospel, not only in the King James Bible, but also in the Latin Vulgate 425 A.D, Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, the Geneva Bible, Revised Version, American Standard Version, the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV ESV, ISV, Holman Standard, and every English Bible version I have ever seen. It is also in the Spanish Reina Valera, the Italian Diodati, and Luther’s German Bible. I know of no Bible version in any language that omits this name from the genealogy of Christ in Luke chapter three.

    By the way, I have also written an article defending the reading of Cainan as found not only in the KJB but in all other Bibles as well. It can be seen here:


    So, the big questions to ask Fred are these: If “no serious scholar believes this name should be in Luke’s text” then WHO are these serious scholars?; WHERE have they been all this time? and WHY didn’t they help put together your modern versions in such a way as to exclude this name from the genealogy found in them ALL ?

    Fred, are you saying that not one of your “serious scholars” was behind all these Bible versions both ancient and modern? Are you telling us that all the Bibles out there are put together by incompetents, jokesters and buffoons? Fred, if everybody has missed it so far, why don’t you gather together all those “serious scholars” you refer to and finally write your own inerrant Bible version for us poor folks who don’t have one?

    Oh wait. I forgot. The KJB, NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV and the Daffy Duck version are “all inerrant and infallible Bibles”, aren’t they. They just happen to differ from each other by omitting 45 whole verses in some New Testaments (RSV) 17 in others (NIV), plus changing the Hebrew texts in scores of places (NASB, NIV, ESV) and the meanings in hundreds more (NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV), but they are all inerrant and infallible except in those places where Fred and his “serious scholars” would like to change the texts in ALL Bibles, but they haven’t gotten around to doing it just yet.

    Fred, you have forsaken the belief in a complete, preserved, inerrant and 100% true Holy Bible in any meaningful and logical way, and have instead gone Fruitloops on us. In your present position we see demonstrated the truth of the saying: “If you mess with the Book, God will mess with your mind.”

    Give me that old, God honored Book that has stood the test of time – the Authorized King James Holy Bible. “EVERY WORD of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him. Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar.” Proverbs 30:5-6

    Will Kinney

  4. Will Kinney says:

    James White – the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions

    James White is not the devil incarnate, nor is he a prophet of God, but he may very well be the equivalent of the Protestant Pope of the new Vatican Versions, and he may not even know it.

    I have read James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy, several times over and have dealt personally with him both on the internet and twice on Christian radio. I believe he has a lot of good things to say when it comes to the cults, but when it comes to the Bible version issue, he is completely on the wrong side.

    James White SAYS he believes The Bible IS the infallible words of God. I asked him this question personally on his radio program. But when I asked Mr. White where we can see a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to believe in, he immediately starts to hem and haw and then tries to change the subject. But the simple fact is this – James White is lying when he says he believes The Bible IS the infallible words of God.

    See “A Reasoned Response to the James White “interview” on his Dividing Line Radio Program”


    See also “Answering James White’s Question – Which King James Version is the infallible words of God?”


    James White has no infallible Bible to show you, and he knows it. His “infallible Bible” is no more than an imaginary, hypothetical and philosophical concept. It is an ongoing process, and no text is settled or sure. At best it may be a ballpark approximation of what God may or may not have said, but it is not the complete, inspired and infallible words of the living God. It is not a real Book of paper and ink you can hold in your hands, read and believe that every word comes from the mouth of God.

    Mr. White used to work for the New American Standard Version, at least in a part time position, but now it seems his favorite flavor of the month Bible version is the ESV, the revision of the revision of the liberal RSV. But what Mr. White may not be aware of is the undeniable FACT that all these modern versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and the brand new Common English Version are all the new “Vatican Versions”.

    You may think this charge is utterly ridiculous. But the proof is undeniable and easily verified. All anyone has to do to confirm the truth of this is to simply read what their own editors of the UBS (United Bible Society) and Nestle-Aland ever changing critical text have written inside their own Greek critical text. Then all you have to do is simply compare the TEXTS of all these New Testaments to see the thousands of omissions and the scores of places where versions like the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET and the modern Catholic bible versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible and the New Jerusalem bible all reject the clear Hebrew readings and add hundreds of words to the inspired Hebrew writings in the Old Testament.

    See Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET etc. are the new “Catholic” bibles.

    There you will find the complete articles, both parts One and Two, and you can see for yourself in black and white that the New Testament and Old Testament texts of the modern Catholic bible versions and the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET are virtually identical in the thousands of words that they all omit and change.

    Here is part of what you will find when you read this article. Do you know why the UBS (United Bible Society) Greek texts are the basis for all these new versions? It’s because Catholics and Evangelicals were united to produce this text. One of the 5 chief editors was the New Age Catholic Cardinal Carlos Martini, who believed god was in all men and in all religions. Just open a copy of the UBS New Testament Greek and turn to the first page. There you will see a list of the 5 chief editors who put this abomination together. The 4th name on the list, right before the inerrancy denying Bruce Metzger, is Carlo M. Martini. In his book “In the Thick of His Ministry” Cardinal Martini writes: “The deification which is the aim of all religious life takes place. During a recent trip to India I was struck by the yearning for the divine that pervades the whole of Hindu culture. It gives rise to extraordinary religious forms and extremely meaningful prayers. I wondered: What is authentic in this longing to fuse with the divine dominating the spirituality of hundreds of millions of human beings, so that they bear hardship, privation, exhausting pilgrimages, in search of this ecstasy?” (In The Thick Of His Ministry, Carlo M. Martini, page 42.)

    Cardinal Martini served on the editorial committee for the United Bible Societies’ 2nd, 3rd and 4th editions, and he is still listed on the opening page of the latest Nestle-Aland 28th edition critical text. These are the “bibles” most modern Christians are using today when they pick up the ESV, NIV, NASB, NET or modern Catholic “bibles”.

    In 1965, Pope Paul VI authorized the publication of a new Latin Vulgate, with the Latin text conformed to the United Bible Societies Greek New Testament (Michael de Semlyen, All Roads Lead to Rome, p. 201). In 1987 a formal agreement was made between the Roman Catholic Church and the United Bible Societies that the critical Greek New Testament will be used for all future translations, both Catholic and Protestant (Guidelines for International Cooperation in Translating the Bible, Rome, 1987, p. 5). Most of the translations produced by the United Bible Societies are “interconfessional,” meaning they have Roman Catholic participation and backing.”

    It is interesting to note that the latest United Bible Societies Text, descended from the Westcott and Hort family, boasts, “the new text is a reality, and as the text distributed by the United Bible Societies and by the corresponding office of the Roman Catholic Church it has rapidly become the commonly accepted text for research and study in universities and church.” – Kurt Aland and Barbara Aland, The Text of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Wm B Eerdmans, 1995), 35.

    I have a copy of the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece 27th edition right here in front of me. It is the same Greek text as the UBS (United Bible Society) 4th edition. These are the Greek readings and texts that are followed by such modern versions as the ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman Standard AND the new Catholic versions like the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970 and the New Jerusalem bible 1985.

    If you have a copy of the Nestle-Aland 27th edition, open the book and read what they tell us in their own words on page 45 of the Introduction. Here these critical Greek text editors tell us about how the Greek New Testament (GNT, now known as the UBS) and the Nestle-Aland Novum Testamentum Graece grew together and shared the same basic text.

    In the last paragraph on page 45 we read these words: “The text shared by these two editions was adopted internationally by Bible Societies, and following an agreement between the Vatican and the United Bible Societies it has served as the basis for new translations and for revisions made under their supervision. This marks a significant step with regard to interconfessional relationships. It should naturally be understood that this text is a working text: it is not to be considered as definitive, but as a stimulus to further efforts toward defining and verifying the text of the New Testament.”

    There it is folks, in their own words. They openly admit that this text is the result of an agreement between the Vatican and the UBS and that the text itself is not “definitive” – it can change, as it already has and will do so in the future, and is not the infallible words of God but merely “a stimulus to further efforts”. And this is the type of “infallible Bible” men like James White are promoting.

    As I previously said, I have read James White’s book several times and have written several articles dealing with the examples of alleged “errors” he claims to have found in the King James Bible. James White is a smooth and fast talker and he has a lot of experience debating people. However upon further investigation and study, I have found much of his apparent “scholarship” to be often not true and sometimes even shoddy.

    I will give you a couple of examples, but you can find many more in “James White – blind scholar” In that particular article I deal with a few of the alleged “problems” James thinks he has found in the King James Bible and I give a link to an online conversation James and I had several years ago where you can see him interact with me on a person to person level. I think it is quite revealing to see where James White REALLY stands on the issue of whether or not there exists such a thing as an inerrant Bible or not. Here is the link to that article.


    One of many examples of James White’s hypocrisy –

    “Word” and “Turn”

    In his book, The King James Only Controversy, chapter Nine, which is titled “Problems in the KJV”, on page 231 “resident scholar” Mr. James White states: “Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times.”

    He continues: “For example, the Hebrew term for “word” or “thing” is rendered by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV! Another term, “to turn back” is rendered in one particular grammatical form by SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder.” (End of quote.)

    Most people who read this in Mr. White’s book would think something like: “Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is. How unscholarly! Why would anybody want to use that?”

    Most people would never take the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White quotes from a certain Jack Lewis here; they would just accept his “scholarly” statements as facts.

    James White knows both Hebrew and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either didn’t check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God’s preserved words in the King James Bible. In either case, his hypocrisy is simply inexcusable.

    The Hebrew word for the English “word” or “thing” is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the King James Bible, but I’ll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.

    A simple look at the complete NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word.

    Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agreement, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion, conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech, talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work.

    As I said, the NIV has over twice this amount of different meanings – well over 200 – as compared to the KJB’s 84.

    The second word mentioned by Mr. White is “to turn back” and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the King James Bible does translate it some 60 different ways.

    However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways, while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!

    What makes the hypocrisy of both James White and Mr. Jack Lewis all the more astonishing, is the fact that Jack Lewis himself is one of the principal NIV translators. Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!

    This is the type of scholarship men like James White and Jack Lewis employ to discredit the truth of the King James Bible.

    James White has no infallible Bible to give you and he knows it, in spite of his empty and false profession to believe “the Bible IS the infallible words of God”. And what he is promoting instead are in fact the new Vatican Versions produced by the Whore of Babylon who has made the inhabitants of the earth drunk with the wine of her spiritual fornication – Revelation 17-18.

    I and thousands of other blood bought children of God believe that God has sovereignly acted in history to keep His promises to preserve His words for ever and to give us “the book of the LORD”. We believe there are many reasons why this Book is none other than the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

    May I suggest just one more article to you that addresses this issue. It’s called ‘God’s Persistent Historical Witness to the Absolute Standard of Written Truth in the King James Bible’. You can see it here –

    I urge you to prayerfully seek the mind of God on this most important matter and to examine your own present belief or unbelief in the Bible you hold in your hands. Do you REALLY believe it is the very inspired and infallible words of God? The only Christians I know of who do, are the King James Bible believers; not men like James White.

    All of grace, believing the Book and clothed in the righteousness of Christ alone,

    Will Kinney

    Return to Articles – http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm

    “If we would destroy the Christian religion, we must first of all destroy man’s belief in the Bible.” Voltaire – ex French philosopher and former atheist.

  5. Hi,

    Fred Butler:
    “I still stick by what I wrote because it is what was written in my source whether or not the source was correct or wrong.”

    Now that sounds like a modern version relativistic concept of truth!

    If it is not true in the NIV, let me check the NAS, well possibly Holman has it right.

    Look, Fred, read the history, its on the net and only takes a little effort. There was a big issue about this in the 1800s, and there was a bio of Simonides that was published with the later date, leading to the confusion. It got sorted out and even baptism papers were referenced and the earlier date (19 or 20 years old) was understood to be correct.

    If you are not going to do the reading then you should not “stick by what I wrote”.

    Yours in Jesus,
    Steven Avery

  6. Steven Avery says:

    As an update, we should look at all the evidence that Sinaiticus is a recent 1800s production.

    Codex Sinaiticus authenticity Research

    Sinaiticus – authentic antiquity or modern?

    Steven Avery
    Dutchess County, NY

    • James A, PhD says:

      Thanks, Steve. I agree. I’ve been following your additional research along with brother Daniels, and the evidence that Sinaiticus is recent is overwhelming.

      Pinto has a new documentary out now, too, as a follow up to Tares called, Bridge to Babylon.

      I should have a response for you this week about your last email. I’ve been distracted with legal issues about my kids so I haven’t really narrowed down the issues I wanted to raise for the thesis (which I still intend on doing although I already got the PhD on another topic).

Leave Godly Comments

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s