What most critics mean when they say the word 'rapture' does not appear in the Bible, they really mean the word rapture is not translated in any English translation. Don't be fooled. Don't let them say Rapture does not appear in the 'Bible.' Remind them...
So that "rapture" position has already been debunked. It would appear that the OP is not interested in learning anything, but to merely confirm his bias and opinions proffered in his paper ala "...Don't be fooled...Remind them..."
And what man of God would identify himself as or with a bible "critic" i.e. one whose aspiration is to
criticize the Bible?
This is not the way we ought to approach the word of God. And "KJV Only" is a pejorative label employed to preemptively discredit the opposition; this is abominable unto the Lord. These critics are afraid. Jesus Christ is the target of hatred by this world. His living Spirit-inspired words, which give his express will on this earth, are the bullseye. Christians who stand with Christ's word at the very bullseye will not only suffer persecution but also be subject to a constant barrage of attack. The word of God brings the same reproach he bore. His word is the only vestige on earth of Jesus Christ, other than the Holy Ghost and the testimony of born again Christians. "[W]hen tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word," some move slightly off center to avoid the unremitting assault of questioning scribes and mocking bystanders (Matthew 13:21). Those edging away from the bullseye are still 'for Jesus,' but the desire not to appear "foolish" finds puffed egos seeking ways and means to avoid the "shame" that comes from saying that you have a book in which God actually talks to man (Acts 5:41, Hebrews 12:2). The living "powerful" quality of the King James Bible incites sinful men to "mock" and "question" it, just as they did Jesus Christ, the living Word, when he was on earth (Mark 10:34, Matthew 22:15, Mark 8:11, et al.).
The apostles scurried away when Jesus was tried and crucified. When the KJB is likewise tried with accusing questions, even some of the best men scurry under the cover of a Greek text, some lexicon or the elusive 'originals.' Calvinists such as Carl Earth (1886-1968) and B.B. Warfield (1851-1921), although defending a semblance of traditional Christianity against German rationalism, were among the first to erect imaginary castles to house the word of God, outside of the tangible 'Holy Bible.' Those, who are under their influence, say that the 'Bible is inspired,' but actually mean that only the originals or some Greek or Hebrew text is inspired. They are unknowingly practicing Semler's deceptive theory of accommodation. They are trying to give the impression of orthodoxy to their listeners or readers.
The actual title of God's word is the Holy Bible - not the King James Bible. Jealous new version 'editors' sought to "rename" it centuries ago, a marketing ploy which has worked in their favor ever since. When I use the term 'Holy Bible' or 'Bible,' I mean what every church-going person means and exactly what the dictionary calls the "Bible," the sacred book of Christianity including the Old and the New Testament." A 'book' is defined by Webster as "a set of written or printed pages fastened on an end and enclosed between protective covers." This describes precisely the Holy Bible Christians read and have in their homes. A 'book' is no where identified as 'dissolved animal skins or parchments which have been written on'; neither is a 'Bible' thought of by anyone as a rare and unreadable Greek text. No living person identifies a 'Bible' as any of these things, except perhaps those 'clergy' who, like Humpty Dumpty say, "When I use a word it means just what I choose it to mean." When children and politicians, like Clinton, do this, it is called lying. B.B. Warfield was one of the first American theologians to declare war on the Holy Bible's inspiration. In the 1800s, this American Presbyterian theologian found himself too close to the bullseye, the Holy Bible. He unwisely positioned himself under a constant barrage of attack in 1876 when he went to study for a year in Leipzig, Germany under the higher critics, who denied that God had given man the Bible.
God has no use for any “originals,” otherwise he would have made certain that we had them today. It’s NEVER been about the translators. Believing it is, is why you have a problem, a disjunction between inspiration and preservation. It’s an irony when some mockingly chatter, ‘Are you saying the KJV translators were inspired like Moses?’ -- when the printed Greek edition that they naively think is ‘the originals’ was edited by men (e.g. Scrivener) who were no more inspired than the KJV translators. Rather,
God’s word is inspired.
What would Jesus do? (please choose one):
a) Inspire a Bible people can read?
b ) Inspire conflicting Greek editions which few can read?
c) Inspire unsaved liberals to write conflicting Greek lex-icons to translate conflicting one-man Greek editions?
d) Inspire originals, then lose them?
A little leaven leavens the whole lump. Touch not the unclean thing; pass not by it. AVOID IT like the plague it is. I will set no wicked thing before mine eyes. God's pattern has always been the same. He has always given the COMMON MAN the COMMON BIBLE written in the COMMON LANGUAGE of the day to do one thing: evangelize the world. Today, that vernacular Bible is the uncopyrighted, free discourse King James Bible.
Which was the first year that KJV was corrected to the place where it was inspired. We know the 1611 had many mistakes. When were all the mistakes removed? What year version?
That gaslighting "revision" lie just keeps on recycling itself.
There are two separate things going on here.
It’s no mystery that when men print/copy things, they make mistakes -- honest mistakes that are corrected over time by honest men. It’s also no mystery that wanna-be scholars, desirous of vainglory, continually set up scenarios that mischaracterize the issue such as when they introduce the inflammatory label of “KJVO.”
But the issue is not about the KJV
per se. The issue is about the
text type from which the KJB is sourced. The KJB text type is representative of
99.9% of all extant evidence (manuscripts, autographs) -- over
5400 items. Conversely, the modern copyrighted version are representative of less than
0.1% of the evidence -- a handful of evidence that historically has been rejected as corrupt. ALL Bibles (not solely today’s English KJB) that were in the line of ascension to the KJB were likewise sourced from that same 99.9%
Majority Text.
The issue has never been about men who made mistakes and corrected those (e.g. typography, typographical errors, and standardization of spelling). Changes/corrections? Yes. But legally qualifying it as a revision?
Not even close. The detractors try hard to slam the KJB into a revision so they can justify
their hundreds of modern copyrighted owned-by-men revi$ion$, sourced from the corrupted Minority Text. So the KJVO strawman ploy is hard for the naysayers to resist, and most believers who trust today’s English KJB as the pure, inspired, preserved word of God are not informed enough to show these bullies the door. These believers have been fed feel-goods by their clergy, and thus they are unprepared to defend their faith in the word of God, the KJB. Of course, the ‘textual critics’ love the steady flow of soon-to-be victims -- witness the twisted OP and the circuitous arguments they forever foist in threads such as this.
These wanna-be scholars and their yes-men, whose highest opinion is of themselves, and whose wiggle room exists solely in the secular world of textual criticism, are not difficult to expose with the voluminous documentation that is available to the diligent. Man’s field of textual criticism is a cesspool of self-absorbed wanna-be's swirling around strategically placed
dogpiles dogma.
These posts will provoke grave silence, as none can answer them, except with trite and tiny vagaries and fierce invectives. They provoke the backbiting bark of watchdogs who cared not to read them thoroughly and be unsettled in their baseless opinions. The devil does not want those in a position of authority or influence (pastor, professor, amateur writer) to read these posts.
There are so many errors in KUWN's paper that it's not possible to address most of them in a single post. But if anyone's game, we can pull them out, one at a time, and take a closer look.
