[Will Kinney]

Mr. Price's Only Conclusion - We don't have an inspired and inerrant Bible

In his closing arguments about the so called “revisions” of the King James Bible, Mr. Price stumbles over the dual pebbles of “printing errors” and “minor spelling differences” only to launch himself out into the chasm of profound uncertainty. Yet all the while he is trying, with a strained smile firmly fixed in place, to reassure the reader that he is not in fact tumbling in a free fall through open space.

He begins wrapping up his arguments about the “archaic and obsolete words” and lists 2 pages worth. Most of these words are not archaic at all, but are found in many printed books today. There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

I always find it ironic and blindly hypocritical for some scholar to tell us he himself can understand the King James Bible (as Mr. Price does), but then tell us that ‘other people’ have a hard time with the language. Of course a good dictionary that anybody can pick up and read will go a long way in clarifying the meaning of these good old English words.

But what do men like Mr. Price recommend instead? Why..., it’s the even more "archaic", far more difficult to pin down and much less understood “THE Hebrew and THE Greek” of course. Now, how is THAT for giving the word of God to the common people?!? Versions like the NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman Standard are full of footnotes that read "Meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain". And where exactly do we find “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek? God only knows, because Mr. Price and his fellow multiple-choice, thousands of textual variants, omissions, additions, corruptions, lacunas, transcriptional probabilities and Bible of the Month Club promoters sure don’t know.

As for the “archaic” words ploy, please see The Old Fashioned Language of the King James Bible - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/langKJB.html

Mr. Price tries to argue that since there are numerous King James Bible publishers out there like Oxford, Cambridge, British & Foreign Bible Society, American Bible Society, Zondervan, Nelson, etc. and that among them there have resulted some spelling differences and/or printing errors, then we cannot logically argue for the King James Bible as being the true and preserved words of God.

Keep in mind that these are such minor differences as “Spirit” or “spirit”, “axe” or “ax”, “lift” or “lifted”, “Abidah” or “Abida”, “cloths” or “clothes”, “colour” or “color”, “forbad” or “forbade”, “astonied” or “astonished”, “further” or “farther”. Gosh, maybe we should just toss up our hands in despair at ever being able to hold up a real Book in our hands and declare “Thus saith the Lord...”

One of his “biggies” is the printed differences in spelling found in Nahum 3:16 where we read in the Cambridge King James Bible - “...the cankerworm spoileth and FLIETH away.” In the Oxford edition it reads “spoileth and FLEETH away.” The original 1611 read “flieth”, but even if a later publisher mistook the word for “fleeth”, any good dictionary will tell you that both words can mean the same thing. My Webster’s dictionary tells me that one of the meanings of“to fly” is “to run away from, flee from; or avoid.”

But let’s go even further with this “big example” Mr. Price presents us with and take a look at all the other bibles out there, shall we? Those Bible translations that read along with the original 1611 and the Cambridge printing of the KJB “FLIETH AWAY” (or flies away) are the following: the Geneva Bible, the NASB, NIV, NKJV, RSV and Holman.

However other versions that read “FLEE AWAY” are the ASV 1901, Coverdale, Bishops’ bible, Young’s ‘literal’, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, the 2003 Updated Bible version, the KJV 21st Century version 1994, and the Hebrew Names Bible.

Listen to Dr. Price’s conclusions and see if you want to go where he clearly has gone in his thinking. On page 123 , after showing us a list of “archaic” words and a few different spellings in the various printed editions of the King James Bible by different publishers, he sums up saying:

“It must be concluded that the current editions of the King James Version are doctrinally reliable, but are not flawless in their minute details. Therefore it would be wrong to dogmatically insist, apart from THE AUTHORITY OF THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS (caps are mine), that the King James Version is the verbally inspired, infallible, inerrant Word of God, when it is known that the various current editions have verbal differences with variations of meaning....The doctrine of verbal inspiration and inerrancy IS LIMITED TO the words that were written by the inspired prophets and apostles. Translations must remain dependent on THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS from which they are made, and must be expected to exhibit some measure of human fallibility....The differences among the King James editions ARE NOT AS NUMEROUS AS THOSE IN THE HEBREW AND GREEK TEXTS....but they still do not have a flawless Standard English text of the KJV to which they can appeal for final authority. To resolve the differences, they must still appeal to the Hebrew and Greek texts to determine which English words are authentic.”

Can you see through all this scholarly Double Talk? Mr. Price is all hung up over a few printing errors, “archaic” words, and minor spelling differences, and his only logical conclusion is that THERE IS NO INSPIRED AND INFALLIBLE BIBLE ON THIS EARTH. In Mr. Price’s thinking, the “inerrant” words of God turned to dust long, long ago, and never did form a complete Book that could be rightfully called The Bible.

Gather up all the spelling variations and minor printing errors in all the various modern printed editions of the King James Bible and compare their number to the total number of the wildly different Hebrew, Greek, various Septuagints, Syriac, Latin Vulgates, Dead Sea Scrolls, Samaritan Pentateuch , the “oldest and best” yada, yadas, or just plain “made up” textual sources from which the modern bible versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV and Holman are translated. Then compare their total numbers and you will find the ratio to be about One Hundred to One. At least the King James Bible believer DOES HAVE a definite underlying Hebrew and Greek text he can go to if need be to find out which printing error is right. ALL Modern, Multi-Versionists like James Price and James White clearly DO NOT.

The Biblical Text Preserved

Beginning with chapter 7 of his book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect, Mr. Price almost sounds like a Bible believer. He starts off with some great quotes and even uses the King James Bible to support his hypothetical position.

He begins by saying: “Of equal importance to the doctrines of divine inspiration, infallibility, and inerrancy of Scripture is the doctrine of preservation of Scripture. Of what authority would the Scripture be today if its text had not been preserved throughout successive generations?”

He then goes on to quote from the KJB the verses in Matthew 5:18 where the Lord Jesus Christ, referring to the Old Testament, says: “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.” He also quotes Matthew 24:35 and even refers it by extention to the New Testament Scriptures when the Lord says: “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.” Then Mr. Price says: “Thus, He anticipated the New Testament and its preservation.” I and thousands of other King James Bible believers heartily agree with him up to this point.

Mr. Price then proceeds to refer again to the Westminster Confession which states: “The Old Testament Hebrew, and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, ARE therefore authentical”.

Then Mr. Price begins to reveal his Achilles heel when he says: “They thought that the printed editions of the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT available to them in their day were reliable representatives of the autographic texts.”

We would agree with Mr. Price and the Westminster Confession that was formulated in England in the year 1646. But may we be permitted to point out a couple of inconvenient facts here? What Bible were they referring to in 1649 that “by the providence and care of God had been kept pure in all ages” and was currently in widespread use throughout the churches in England at that time? It was the King James Bible.

If by the Hebrew and the Greek texts they included the other English Reformation bibles too, like the Bishops’s bible of 1568 and the Geneva bible of 1560, then we would like to point out that their OT Hebrew and NT Greek texts were of the same type as the King James Bible and all of them were far different from the multitude of modern versions like the NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV and Holman Standard, all of which reject the same Westminster Confession Hebrew texts in scores of places and reject the aforementioned NT Greek texts by omitting or calling into question some 40 entire verses plus another 2000 words or so, and none of them agrees even with each other.

Mr. Price professes an agreement with a Confession of Faith in the purity of Scriptures which he soon effectively denies when he promotes such modern versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, RSV and others, all of which affirm the same Hebrew Scriptures to have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places. So, Mr. Price, please don’t tell us you believe the Westminster Confession, and then turn right around and deny the very Hebrew and Greek texts they stood for.

On page 129, Mr. Price begins to discuss the various “theories” of where God’s words might be preserved, and he gives us the modern day party line saying: “Those who have studied the SCIENCE AND ART of TEXTUAL CRITICISM have developed various theories of how the autographic text should be recovered from the multiple but imperfect witnesses. (Caps are mine). If you really want to see this “science and art” of textual criticism in action, take a look at my five part series on “Is this “Science” or Hocus Pocus?” here:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

Mr. Price goes on to mention that some prefer the texts from Egypt, known as the Alexandrian tradition (these would be the Westcott-Hort versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV). Others prefer the Byzantine or ‘Majority Text’ view, others the Textus Receptus, and others still prefer an evaluation of all the witness from all traditions, but of course he takes a firm stand with none of the above and leaves the matter open to the individual conscience. He concludes: “No matter what theory a person prefers, the recovery of the autographic text is left with some degree of uncertainty.”

Since Mr. Price was one of the chief editors of the New King James Version, it is little surprise that he would support such an undecided and vague view of the preservation of Scriptures. Notice these words from the NEW KJV 1982 on page 1235: "It was the editors' conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. THEY ALSO RECOGNIZED THAT IT WAS EASIER FOR THE AVERAGE READER TO DELETE SOMETHING HE OR SHE FELT WAS NOT PROPERLY A PART OF THE TEXT, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers."

These footnotes in the NKJV generally have to do with the 3000 - 7000 words that have been omitted from the New Testament in such versions as the RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV. The NKJV editors are of the opinion that THE AVERAGE READER can DELETE something he FEELS is not part of the text.

On page 130 Mr. Price continues: “Because of the complexity of the problem of recovering the autographic text from multiple but imperfect witnesses, and because of the uncertainty...some have resorted to the dogma that God has preserved authoritative translations...and that the English Authorized Version is the perfectly preserved, authoritative Word of God for this time. But this is a new doctrine, not in harmony with the historical doctrine of Scripture.”

Again, let it be pointed out that the King James Bible believer’s faith in a preserved “book of the LORD” is based on what the Bible says about itself; not the “historical doctrine” of Scripture drawn up by men (i.e. the Westminster Confession) that even Mr. Price himself effectively denies. We really take those previously quoted verses in Matthew 5:18 and 24:35 to heart. We actually believe God has preserved His words as He promised and all the evidence points to the King James Bible as being that book.

Mr. Price again makes a silly argument against the possibility of a Translation being the inerrant word of God when he says on page 131: “But translations are the product of fallible men who cannot claim perfection.” Well, Duh.... How about those “fallible men who cannot claim perfection” that God used to give us the originals in the first place? If being fallible and imperfect men disqualifies any of us from being the chosen vessels of passing down God’s inspired words to succeeding generations, then the originals would never had been penned in the first place! His argument proves too much.

Then he again sticks his foot in his mouth when he says that “the Hebrew and Greek words cannot be perfectly transferred into another language (like English) without the loss of precision....Translation always involves some degree of deficiency. The most that can be expected of the best translation is an optimum transfer of information, not perfection, even with alleged providential preservation.”

He might want to take up his argument with the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostles who continually “translated” from the inspired Hebrew and put it into another language for the New Testament, or with the apostle Paul who preached virtually a whole chapter in one language that was translated into another inspired one in Acts 22. This whole idea that a translation cannot be the inspired word of God did not come from the Bible, but from the seminary where they took both his money and his faith in an inerrant Bible.

Please see the article called “Can a Translation Be Inspired” - http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/transinsp.html

Mr. Price admits the Hebrew Scriptures have been corrupted or even lost in parts, and has only a vague idea as to where the true N.T. readings may be found. So where, if not the King James Bible, does Mr. Price expect us to go to find the authoritative word of God? He won’t tell you. In his mind it is “out there somewhere” among all the thousands of variant readings and neither he nor any of his fellow Bible of the Month Club promoters are willing to take a stand on anything as being the sure words of God.

On page 150 he closes with these “comforting” words: “The reconstruction of the autographic texts is complex and not without some degree of uncertainty...So God evidently intends for His people to use their God-given intelligence, under illumination of the Holy Spirit, to accomplish this task....but, of course, no complete agreement has resulted. No one individual or group of individuals can claim to have the perfect solution to the problem.”

Apparently in Mr. Price’s view, poor ol’God has not only not been able to preserve His words as Matthew 5:18 and 24:35 promise, but now even God's “evident intentions” that His people could somehow manage to do it for Him have been dashed to pieces too.

In Conclusion

I have finished leafing through the rest of Mr. Price’s book to see what else he has to say, and frankly, I grow weary of reading him. The rest of his book takes up the various 8 to 10 different theories of textual criticism, with one scholar differing radically from what another says, ending up with Mr. Price eventually picking his own individual way of doing things. If you think my response has shown many textual differences among the various versions, then finish reading Mr. Prices book. He goes into literally hundreds of textual differences in both the Old and New Testaments in all the various versions out there and ends up with no Infallible Bible to give or recommend to anyone. He won’t even tell you which ones are right and which ones are not. The only thing he’s sure about is that neither the King James Bible nor any other Bible in any language is now the complete, inerrant and 100% true words of God.

Mr. Price gives us the usual “No Bible is inspired” party line about the 5 or 6 different Greek versions and the so called Septuagint. If you are interested in reading the other side of this argument, then begin here and follow on through the rest. http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NoLXXOne.html

The idea that there was no authoritative Pre-Christian Greek Septuagint did not originate with Dr. Peter Ruckman. Others too throughout history have noted that what passes for the LXX is actually codex Sinaiticus and Vaticanus and that readings from an already completed New Testament were “back-translated” and placed into the so called Greek Septuagint.

Mr. Price also claims the Old Latin bibles are not on the side of the King James Bible, just as Doug Kutilek does. Yet how these gentlemen can ignore even their own Nestle-Aland footnotes that confirm the existence of every major disputed verse omitted in many modern versions as being found in these old bibles is beyond me.

You can see the evidence for yourself in this article about the Old Latin readings and the disputed King James Bible verses here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/OldLatin.html

Mr. Price basically ends his book with these words of distilled wisdom which are self-contradictory at best, but do reveal the sophistry of one who sounds out pious sounding words signifying nothing.

“The Bible, like all other things in life, has a measure of uncertainty associated with its identity...Sound reason has shown that this uncertainty provides no practical basis for doubting the authenticity or authority of Scripture; instead, reason provides the stepping stone for faith to move beyond uncertainty to full confidence in God’s Word....I plan to continue to use my King James Versions and other modern versions, to employ what seems to be the best method of textual criticism, and to retain my confidence in the Hebrew and Greek texts of he Bible as the divinely inspired, infallible, inerrant, authoritative Word of God, in spite of the occasional uncertainty.”

Can you see that Huge White Elephant standing in the middle of the room here?

In closing I would like to present you with one last article I have written about the Bible Version issue. One can argue the thousands of variant textual readings till they go silly and never solve anything, but the evidence that the King James Bible is the only true word of God is the fact that it always tells the truth and never perverts sound doctrine. Many argue, like Mr. Price does, that the major doctrines are taught in all bible versions, no matter how different. To a large extent I agree with him. However it is where these contradictory bible versions do pervert the Truth of God, that they reveal themselves to be bogus bibles They often speak with forked tongue, and raise again that first question found in the Bible when, in the garden of Eden, the subtle serpent asked - “Yea, hath God said...?

Please consider the article on the link below. It is titled ‘No Doctrines Are Changed?’.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/nodoctrine.html

May the Lord our God cause you and me “to grow in grace and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. To him be glory both now and for ever. Amen.” 2 Peter 3:18

Will Kinney