If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest, Proverbs 29:9.
Recently, I posted a statement to a Facebook Group called The King James Bible Debate. It is a well run format for airing divergent beliefs about the King James Bible. My statement was this:
There is no writing in the courts of heaven, in the presence of our great God, more accurate than our King James Bible.
Aside from those few who read the statement wrong and thought that I was saying that there was no accurate writing in heaven, most people heartily endorsed what was written. It has been commented on over 60 times and copied 37 times. It was written to provoke comment and it did. Among those comments was a simple one word comment by a James E Snapp Jr. who simply wrote, "False".
What follows is a back and forth conversation between Will Kinney and James Snapp Jr. that I find edifying. Both of them remained as gentlemen in their replies though it is obvious that they disagree profoundly.
What is obvious is that James E Snapp Jr does not believe that there is any manuscript, text or bible on this earth that is 100% reliable. What is also obvious is that to Will Kinney, the King James Bible is 100% accurate. His charge to those who disagree is consistent throughout his writings. He maintains that those who delve into the manuscripts to rewrite the Bible are in effect their own authority. They pick and choose what to believe.
I have never met either man, but I have grown to love Will Kinney and am thankful for his vast learning and research.
From Will Kinney:
I guess both you and others who join here who are not familiar with your views need to be constantly reminded that you clearly are your own authority and that you have NO complete and inerrant Bible in any language to show to anybody.
Since you are working on making your own personal bible translation (or at least the New Testament) you must think that you will be the first person in all of history to finally give us an inerrant New Testament.
Of course no other Bible translator has ever agreed with you concerning your textual choices and translation 100% of the time, but I'm sure this fact won't stop you from thinking you are smarter and more discerning than them all.
I well imagine you will not change your present course, but let others be warned to not take your "ex-cathedra pontifications" about what should or should not be in this "bible" thingy you are working on too seriously.
From James E. Snapp Jr.:
I guess you and those who are familiar with your views need to be reminded that what you imagine to be the 100% perfect word of God - the KJV - has flaws in real life, which can and should be corrected.
Let others be warned, indeed. It's you, not I, who usurps the inspired word of God using your mumpsimus tradition as a front for rebellion against God's inspired word.
From Will Kinney:
[I]f your pious sounding theory is true concerning what these "inspired words of God in the originals" you always mention are, which you then compare to the King James Bible and find it to be in error, then can you either show us a copy of the originals?
That or can you give us a link to where we can see this complete and inerrant words of God New Testament thingy you have been working on for so many years now?
Got a link to where we can see this masterpiece you have come up with and know what it says? Or are you still working on it?
Does any other Bible in history use the same textual variants and have the same meanings as found in your version, or are you the first one in history to get it 100% right?
Inquiring minds want to know.
Thanks.
From James E. Snapp Jr.
<< can you either show us a copy of the originals? >>
No; the original documents have long ago been destroyed. But you can consult very many New Testament manuscripts online -- I provide links to some of them at
and
and
and
and
and
and
and
<< or can you give us a link to where we can see this complete and inerrant words of God New Testament thingy you have been working on for so many years now? >>
I can mail you a digital copy of my Greek Uncial Archeytpe [Sic} of Mark via e-mail; just send me an e-mail address to send it to. I also have prepared the text of Matthew, in English, and Philemon and James and Jude. For the rest of the New Testament, I don't expect my compilation's meaning to be much different from the Byzantine Text compiled by Antoniades, which is reflected in the EOB New Testament, which you can read about (and download via embedded links) at
<< Does any other Bible in history use the same textual variants and have the same meanings as found in your version >>
I reckon that the differences in meaning in my compilation, compared to the EOB-NT, are very few, and with very few exceptions involve textual variants where the evidence is finely balanced.
From Will Kinney:
[L]ike I have repeatedly said, you are your own authority when it comes to what you happen to think (this week) should or should not be in this "bible" thingy you are putting together.
From James E Snapp Jr.
I don't claim an special authority, as if "I say so" is an adequate defense of Reading A as opposed to Reading B. I study the textual evidence and try to follow where it leads. While you, in the cases I mentioned above -- Lk. 7:31, Acts 9:5-6, Eph. 3:9, Philippians 4:3, Col. 1:6, James 4:12, I Jn 5:7, Jude v. 25, Rev. 6:12, etc. -- seem to prefer whatever the KJV supports, even when it is not divinely inspired.
From Will Kinney:
[I]t is pretty amazing to me to see the way you think and claim to not be doing the very thing you are doing. You say you study the textual evidence and try to follow where it leads. Then YOU make a textual decision as to which reading YOU happen to think is the right one, and yet many Bible translators both in English and foreign languages disagree with YOUR textual decisions.
There is textual evidence for every example you show here. Though I am not sure exactly what your problem is with Revelation 6:12; I don't think I have seen that one yet.
But a good example here is 1 John 5:7. MANY early commentators affirm that this is inspired Scripture and the verse is found in a multitude of Bibles both before and after the KJB and in many languages.
1 John 5:7-8 KJB - "For there are three that bear record IN HEAVEN, THE FATHER, THE WORD, AND THE HOLY GHOST: AND THESE THREE ARE ONE. AND THERE ARE THREE THAT BEAR WITNESS IN EARTH, the Spirit, and the water, and the blood: and these three agree in one."
https://brandplucked.webs.com/1john57.htm You are simply your own authority.
By the way, James. You have Jude 25 here in your list of "errors" in the KJB.
This is another good example of how you are your own authority. What exactly do you think is wrong with the KJB here? Jude 25. KJB "To the only WISE God our Saviour be glory AND majesty, dominion and power, both now and ever. Amen." Jude 25 ESV (NIV, NASB, NET, RSV, Holman, Catholic Versions, Jehovah Witness New World Translation) - "to the only God, our Savior, THROUGH JESUS CHRIST OUR LORD, be glory, majesty, dominion, and authority, BEFORE ALL TIME and now and forever. Amen."
I think Will Kinney did a good job here. I think that James E Snapp Jr. did a good job defending his position. I also think that Will Kinney was defending God's take on the whole matter.
Hoping for more responses so I decided to post this, below, in a slightly different manner:
x-
Replying to kddlporter
"Paul delivered such to Satan until they learned not to blaspheme ..." Regarding "blaspheme/blasphemy," doesn't Will Kinney (to name only one of many "believers" - even many "KJVOs") say "the Holy Ghost" is the same as "the Holy Spirit"? If so, isn't that blasphemy? I ask because I do not know. The KJV, the very word of God, says "Holy Ghost" ninety (90) times, "Holy Spirit" only one singular time (in Luke 11:13).
-x
These Jesuit trained, scholastic & CFR types catch the immature & inexperienced & capture them by philosophy & tradition, flattering pride& drawing them into their deceitful ways & tactics of 'transformation'. Not Romans 12 transformation, but self-driven & guided by gurus&masters, men & devils. - When sent out into churches they begin flattering, meeting w/ people privately in homes or 'small group' programs planting seeds of heresy & discord, 'more spiritual' pentacostal& spiritism lies to draw followers to themselves & their devilish tactics, techniques, & disciplines....puffing pride, drawing souls into bondage with sensual fleshly experience, ritual etc. They foster doubt in the scriptures, then insert the false doctrine that was their cloaked desire & intent from the beginning. They talk ab…
Bible thingy is no more 'demeaning' than those purpose driven snakes who for years lied to people in so-called 'bible studies' for the CFR and the spirit behind it & Rome. Tired of these being treated like children who don't know what they are doing, or pretending that they do it for the Lord & not their own pride & Mammon. What is he supposed to call their divinations? Bibles?
I have neither FB nor any other social media (and it’s been almost 6 years now 😊), so I haven’t read the debate. I don’t believe Will Kinney thought his argument was weak, but the use of the term “Bible thingy” is definitely demeaning and unproductive. That term could easily put someone on the defensive and degrade an otherwise civil debate.
I absolutely, positively, unequivocally 100% agree with your statement posted on FB, Brother Asquith. Thank you.
Why must one, attempting a theological discussion/debate, use such demeaning terminology as” Bible thingy”? Only one who feels his/her argument is weak needs to use demeaning language when referring to the other person’s position. Mr. McKinney is smart enough to do better.