King James Bible: Refutation of one Robert Joyner

What Robert Joyner shows in this article is the Biblical truism, “Knowledge puffeth up”. But it gave me some good talking points about the King James Bible.

HAVE WE BEEN LIED TO?
By Dr. Robert Joyner
In this article I will show the KJV Only group has repeatedly lied and misrepresented the facts, not just a few times, but over and over. This is the way they propagate their theory. Lying and deception is normal for them.


A common trick of the guilty, accuse the victim.

NEW AGE VERSIONS

Gail Riplinger’s writings are a good example of distortion, twisting the facts and outright lying. When I was sent an advertisement of her NEW AGE VERSIONS, it was evident this book was extreme and way out in left field. She claimed there was a hidden alliance between the new Bible versions and the New Age Movement. She asserted that the New Versions had occult origins. They would prepare the churches of the last day to accept the religion of the Anti-Christ and to receive his mark.


Already getting fulfilled. One report tells of a prophecy instructor sent to churches from the “Left Behind” people, already saying that nobody has anything to fear from an embedded chip (in his right hand or forehead, I might add), because, according to him, the Bible says it is placed “ON” (my emphasis) the skin rather than “IN”. There is only one Bible “version” in English that says “in”, the KJB.

John Hinton, graduate versed in a great many languages including the ancient Biblical languages, blasts away at “on” explaining that the “mark” is from a word that implies an incision, a groove, not face paint.

Anyone in his right mind knows that no Bible will do this. The New Age movement is not built on any Bible. The Anti-Christ will not have any kind of Bible. He will be against all Bibles. Later on I learned that many gullible people were buying Riplinger’s book. That is unbelievable, I thought.
When I saw a copy of her book, it was so evident that everything in it was slanted, twisted, or was a bald-faced lie. She could not get anything right. She even misquoted the KJV.


What anyone in their right mind knows in the real world is that New Agers are quoting their own interpretations of the Bible ALL THE TIME. They do just like modern versions, “Hath God said”, followed by “What is really says is this. What Jesus really said is that.” Blah blah.

[…meaningless content-lacking opinion snipped..]
David Cloud is a strong believer in the KJV Only view, but he said regarding NEW AGE VERSIONS, “It is the frequent error in documentation, in logic, and in statement of fact that gives cause for alarm. There are many good points made in the book, but it is so marred by error, carelessness, and faulty logic that it cannot be used as a dependable resource.” Cloud went on to say that the book was not accurate in its references, the documentation was unreliable and it contained countless statements which were entirely unsubstantiated.


This is an opinion from a source that  Joyner said in the opening paragraph belongs to a group that continually lies and misrepresents, presumably to refute a stronger KJB opnion that has better facts.

Riplinger claimed she was inspired by God to write her book. She said it was such a direct revelation from God, she hesitated to put her name on it. So she put G. A. Riplinger, which meant to her, God as the author and Riplinger as secretary. So she is saying that God is the primary author.


Joyner’s next paragraphs blows all credibility out the window about inspiration.

The Bible clearly says inspiration stopped when Revelation chapter 22 was complete. Riplinger is doing the same thing cults do when they add their books to the Bible. Gail Riplinger is a heretic. She is not worthy to be taken seriously. Yet thousands read what she says and do not question it. This is amazing!


I read the book and there is not one sentence or thought there than can be reasonably or honestly twisted to imply any claim that she was adding a book to the Bible. It is the modern versionists, however, who are always –admittedly!– putting their own words into chapters and verses in the Bible. They admit it when they claim that “no translation” is perfect.

What is amazing is that so many smart people can believe that God would leave us without an inspired Bible standard, so we can KNOW things like the Mark of the Beast going “IN” the skin rather than “ON” the skin.

How can someone with the degrees and training which Mrs. Riplinger is supposed to have, make such mistakes? The answer is this. Mrs. Riplinger is not a Bible scholar. All of her degrees, her teaching, and her writing had been in the area of interior design. When she taught at Kent State, it was in the Home Economics department. She taught interior design.


So what? God’s word includes writings at the hand of a 12-year old prophet (Jeremiah), a fisherman (Peter), a physician (Luke and Acts), a bunch of “unlearned and ignorant men” (Acts 4:13), a humble shepherd boy (David) and let us not forget the best example, a carpenter by trade.

And the critics who invoke “the praises of men” as an argument against those who don’t have it, remind me of the Pharisees who told the Jews, “Have any of the rulers or of the Pharisees believed on him?” (John 7:48)

NAMES OF KJV ONLY BOOKS

Just the names of these crazy KJV Only books show the lack of logic the movement is built on. One is called THE FINAL AUTHORITY. Everybody should know the original Hebrew and Greek is the final authority.


When did God say only the “original Hebrew and Greek” is the “final authority”? Where is the Biblical reference for this?

And by the way, how does this author know exactly what the “original Hebrew and Greek” actually says? There are countless copies of copies. There are not only different “families’ of ancient copies in codex and manuscript form, and nobody –nobody at all– can show us with finality one of these “originals”. Parts of inspired Jeremiah in their own “versions” show that what finally got passed on in the first generation was a re-inspiration of the first writing.

Where did God say he would never speak in a different language, or inspire a translation the exact way he wanted it?

However, Jesus did say that “For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.” (Matthew 5:18)

Jesus promised that “not one jot or one tittle” would pass, till all is fulfilled. We all know he was obviously talking about ALL the meaning of ALL the scripture, down to the most minute detail of nuance of meaning.

The KJB translators were not only the best scholars of the English language and of the Biblical languages, they were believers, devout, who also knew the Bible a lot better than modern translators, who often make mistakes that they could avoid had they known it.

However, the purpose of this book is to show the KJV is the final authority. Another book is GOD WROTE ONLY ONE BIBLE. Of course God only wrote one Bible but the book tries to show God only wrote one version, which is entirely a different matter. But KJV Only folks don’t see the stretch here: the change from Bible to version.


God is not the author of confusion. Failing to see the significant difference between “divisive” and “heretic” is not a laughing matter, or between a mark of the Beast “in” the right hand from a mark of the Beast “on” the right hand. Or a thousand other differences.

Or take the difference between the gospel of Mark with or without The Great Commission passage.

Another book is THINGS THAT ARE DIFFERENT ARE NOT THE SAME. The argument of this book attempts to tell readers that if something is different, it cancels whatever it differs with. That is faulty logic. A Ford and a Cadillac are different but one does not cancel the other. Both will carry you where you want to go. They both serve the same purpose. So Bible versions are different but they serve the same purpose. One version may be in old English, another in Modern English, but both serve the same purpose. KJV Only people can’t see this. Another book is, LET’S WEIGH THE EVIDENCE but the only evidence given is one sided and the only thing it proves is the lack of logic of the author. Is Logic and common sense being abandoned by modern preachers and Christians?


A Ford and a Cadillac does cancel each other out unless you’re a millionaire. You buy one or the other, most of us. And one DOES cancel the other. Ask ANY mechanic whether repairing a Ford is the same as repairing a Cadillac.

But automobiles give me an even better comparison to make.

At one company my manager was a Cuban refugee, an accountant, who had worked on one of Castro’s collective farms. One day he was going on a trip to Havana. The farm mechanic asked him to see if he could find an old 1954 Ford pickup repair manual so he could figure out how to fix their Russian made pickup. The accountant asked him how could that work?

The mechanic explained that the Russian pickup was an EXACT COPY of the Ford model. There are lessons there about economics and socialism and dictatorship and corporate espionage, but in this context the fact is that the Russian trick was a COUNTERFEIT copy, a truck that purported to be something it was not.

A phony dollar bill has a lot of little things that are just like the real thing, but there are differences that make all the difference.

If it isn’t God’s word 100%, then it’s phony and you can’t trust it.

People can get saved using a counterfeit, but along the way if you keep using a counterfeit you’ll get caught.

WORD FOR WORD TRANSLATION?

The KJV Only group is so against dynamic equivalency (This term means that translators give the meaning, rather than a word for word translation). They contend the KJV is a word for word translation. Actually there is no such thing possible. All translators know this.


Of course they do, and of course the KJB translators knew this better than anybody, and since I know of NOT ONE KJBO advocate that even says this, it is a “straw man” argument that means absolutely nothing to the issue.

The issue is that the “dynamic equivalence” philosophy is totally destroyed by the fact that Jesus said the Word would be preserved down to each “one jot or one tittle”.

The author wasted a lot of paragraphs refuting this straw man. The KJB is a straightforward translation that does not take liberties with a paraphrase philosophy of translation.

Actually the NASB is a more literal translation than the KJV. If the KJV Only people really wanted a literal translation, they would like it but instead they curse it.


The NASB is translated from a small set of manuscripts known as the Alexandrian line, and it’s actually God that curses anyone who removes parts from the books that are parts of the Bible (The Great Commission, the adulterous woman story).

VERSES LEFT OUT?

The KJV people ask, “Why do the modern versions leave verses and words out?” I think they have the question reversed. It should be, “Why does the KJV insert so many words and verses?” The fact is, the Textus Receptus and the KJV translators included most any verse or phrase that was in any manuscript, which was available to them. The modern versions put the verse in only if the manuscript evidence required it. This is more logical. The KJV is based on the Byzantine text, which is a derived text. It obviously incorporates into itself the earlier readings found in both the Alexandrian and Western texts. When manuscripts differed, they would put in both readings. For example, in Luke 24:53 the KJV says they were “Praising and blessing God.” The Alexandrian text says “blessing God.” The Western text says “praising God.” The Byzantine text joined both readings together rather than omitting one reading. Erasmus even put verses in out of the Latin vulgate. So there are verses and phases in the KJV that are not found in any Greek manuscript. Examples are parts of Acts 9:5-6 and Rev. 22:14. Remember it is just as bad to add to the Word as it is to delete.(Rev. 22:18)


The KJB translators were devout believers and had the Word of God in awe, so they followed their knowledge guided by their devotion in the renderings, and by their fruits we know them when we get into details.

Actually many verses that are left out of the modern versions are repeats. For example, in Mark 9, the KJV says three times, “the fire is not quenched.” The Modern versions have it only once.


This makes a reader wonder whether he is being honest. The Bible is FULL of repeated verses. “These six [things] doth the LORD hate: yea, seven [are] an abomination unto him:” (Prov 6:16). Many of the words of Jesus are repeated throughout the Gospels. Paul preaches a gospel of grace not works in many different ways.

Talking about adding and leaving out verses, the 1611 KJV added 14 entire books, a total of 172 chapters, called the Apocrypha. Certainly no other version adds or takes away this many verses. The 1611 KJV is the worst version of all about adding verses. How dare the KJV Only people to even talk about leaving out verses! I know Peter Ruckman and others give silly excuses and explanations for the 1611 KJV containing the Apocrypha, but the bottom line is, the original KJV contained the Apocrypha.


Even the 1611 printing had disclaimers on the Apocrypha, and in the earliest subsequent editions they quickly realized the confusion it was causing and took it out. On the other hand, the modern translations almost all are based on the Alexandrian manuscripts that include the Apocrypha, some of them including extra books like “The Shepherd of Hermes”.

Those facts are listed in Gayle Riplinger’s book, and this guy claims to refute the book?

THE ALEXANDRIAN TEXT


He then defends the Alexandrian text without examples that refute the criticism of them, by just saying there are good people and bad people everywhere. Of course he skips over the actual arguments and presents no real defense, because there is none.

WESTCOTT AND HORT
B.F. Westcott and F.J.A. Hort are the main scholars the KJV Only advocates love to hate. Gail Riplinger and others have misquoted and misinterpreted what they said. They even quote W.W. Westcott and attribute it to the scholar B.F. Westcott. Riplinger and others quote B.F. Westcott’s son when he said his father had investigated spiritualism. They use this against Westcott.


Somebody lied about this. Riplinger had the right Westcott and Hort, and their sons wrote about them and exposed them. The two actually questioned their own choice for a translation, “Are you sure?”

Their sons (yes of that Westcott and Hort) wrote and confirmed that they hated the Bible (the KJB was the Bible then), they said the Garden of Eden was a fairy tale, they thought the expiatory sacrifice of Jesus Christ was contemptible, they said anybody who believed in the miracles was deluded, and anybody who believed in the Resurrection was especially demented. And I can believe that the one son wrote that their “investigations” were no good. Maybe he had more sense than his father, more love for God.

But what is really demented is their preference for the Vaticanus and the Sinaiticus manuscripts. These two contradict each other in more places than any of the other Alexandrian manuscripts among themselves or any of them differ from the Byzantine.

The Sinaiticus was snatched by Tischendorf during travels in the middle east, from a trash basket where the monks had lazily let it lie for unknown centuries, waiting to be burnt. He stole it –that’s right, stole it– with promises of remuneration that motivated the monks to let him take it. Years later they claimed he had swindled them.

The Vaticanus they found in an extensive search through the Vatican’s ancient rooms, specifically looking for an alternative to the Byzantine.

They are older because earlier generations of Christians with spiritual discernment had discarded them. They used the better ones for their copies, which of course wore out faster. That’s why the Byzantine line is more recent.

ANTI-BAPTIST KJV

It is well known that King James hated Baptists. He said he wanted to “harrow out of England” all Baptists. The King James Version was rejected by Baptists when it first came out. When the Baptists first came to America, they brought the Geneva Bible, not the KJV. In fact, some of the first Baptists to arrive here had been run out of England by King James.
King James, in 1612, imprisoned a Baptist preacher named Thomas Helwys for a tract he had written opposing the state church (Church of England).
John Bunyan, a Baptist and author of PILGRIMS PROGRESS, spent many years in the Bedford prison because of persecution from the Church of England (which King James and the KJV translators were part of).


Now this is very telling. Here he criticizes the Authorized Version by way of using King James, who did not do translation though he knew the languages, but thinks it’s okay to use a Catholic version from the Vatican with cooperation from Vatican authorities counts against the Alexandrian versions.

As a matter of fact, to expose the truth even more, he has to now explain why he prefers a family of translations that has more approval from the Vatican than the KJB or the Byzantine Greek documents for that matter. Oh yes, and why do his modern translations make sure that their end product is approved by Catholic scholars?

Who is the bigger historical persecutor of Baptists? Anglicans or Catholics?

PRO CATHOLIC

A heavy Catholic influence was exhibited in the KJV from the time of Erasmus, a Roman Catholic who compiled the Greek text. The reason he put I John 5:7 in his Greek text was because the Catholic church threatened to excommunicate him if he didn’t. This verse is found in only two late Greek manuscripts. It is not found in the Majority text. Erasmus knew it did not belong in his Greek text. But the worst thing to a Catholic is ex-communication, so he put it in. He also put in other verses from the Latin Roman Catholic Bible.


Blah blah, pure speculation based on a need to get things from OUTSIDE the Bible to use to criticize the King James Bible. There is not one reference to examples from either side of the debates, just pure ad hominem. They don’t like the messenger, so they’re criticizing how he does his hair.

The Gunpowder Plot blows the accusation to pieces. King James blessed the suggestion of a Puritan to make a translation that would be used in all the English-speaking world in 1603 and it was underway by 1604

In 1605, the Gunpowder Plot was discovered. Its mastermind was a Jesuit priest, and their intent was to blow up the Parliament building during a speech by King James, to cut off the head of the government and install a pro-Catholic coup in its place.

The Catholic church at the time HATED translations of the Bible to the vernacular and banned its subjects from reading it. John Knox (1514-1572) was a priest in the Roman Catholic church who did not even know there was such a book until he saw it on a list of banned books.

God is not the author of confusion. Why would he want us to have a hundred different “translations” of his Word? The fact is, there is absolutely no Biblical basis for saying God would never anoint a modern rendition of his Word in the way he wants us to read it.

He said he’d preserve every single “jot” and every single “tittle” of meaning in his word. Not the general “message”.

Let your communication be yea and nay, we are told, meaning straightforward. There is one standard. Go check these things for yourself.

 

Advertisements

Tags: , , , , , , ,

One Response to “King James Bible: Refutation of one Robert Joyner”

  1. King James Bible and Revelation 17:6 « Truebook Says:

    […] King James Bible: Refutation of one Robert Joyner (truebook.wordpress.com) […]

Leave a Reply

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: