Video: Bottles, wine skins, and phony King James Bibles

So is it bottles or wine skins? And what’s the New Scofield Reference Bible got to do with it? Some comments about the “Mandela Effect” in my post on the Lion and the Lamb (a verse that does not and never has existed in the Bible) prompted me to record this video.

Here’s an outline of the video content.

  • Comments on Misremembered Bible Quotes (Lion and the Lamb) shows the confusion caused by phony “King James Bible updates.”
    • A visitor throws in with the “yea hath God said” chorus offering evidence of stealth changes to the King James Bible:
    • Supposedly, the real King James Bible has “wineskins” but this has been changed to “bottles.” The comment says “WAKE UP! THE KJV now has DOCTRINAL, SPELLING, GRAMMAR, PUNCTUATION errors, and nonsense verses.”
    • His “evidence” is that his 1967 AKJV “still has” wine skins. He thinks it’s “nonsensical” to have “bottles” here because he thinks bottles must be made of glass or plastic.
  • No King James Bible has “wine skins” anywhere. The King James Bible uses the word “bottle” in 25 verses. Example:
    • Joshua 9:4 (KJV) They did work wilily, and went and made as if they had been ambassadors, and took old sacks upon their asses, and wine bottles, old, and rent, and bound up;
  • What’s this guy actually talking about?
    • This person is unaware that the so-called “authorized” KJV they’ve got is actually a fake Bible – a phony “update” to the King James called the New Scofield Reference Bible.
    • In 1967, some people figured there would be some good money in updating the Old Scofield Bible. They change Scofield’s notes, and they inserted their own “helpful updates” to the King James Bible text itself.
    • The fake text of the NSRB: bottles is changed to skins and rent is changed to torn.
      • Picture
      • Note the marginal note that even says the KJV has bottles. How nice of them to leave it in the margin for us. Too bad the guy who posted his comment didn’t take the time to read it—but that is the point, the margin is usually not read as the text is.
    • Notice that despite their change in the Bible text itself, they still call it an Authorized King James.
      • picture
    • The word in the King James is bottles. The only people confused by this would be ones who don’t know what a bottle is.
      • Webster 1913: A hollow vessel, usually of glass or earthenware (but formerly of leather), with a narrow neck or mouth, for holding liquids.
      • OED 2: a A vessel with a narrow neck for holding liquids, now usually made of glass; originally of leather.
    • Why does the NSRB change this? It can’t be because skins is clearer, since people can wear Bottles is obviously the correct and more precise noun. A bottle is a container for liquids with a narrow neck. It can be made of anything and was probably leather. Skins can be clothes or something to write on or a million other things. The change is obviously inferior.
    • What about some of the other changes? Time precludes a detailed example, but let’s take this verse in the King James:
      • Genesis 3:5 (KJV) For God doth know that in the day ye eat thereof, then your eyes shall be opened, and ye shall be as gods, knowing good and evil.
      • The NSRB thinks it’s helpful to change as gods to like God.
        • Picture
      • There is nothing archaic about gods in Genesis 3:5. Say what you want, but this is a straight-up change of the highest order. They aren’t fixing a printing error or adjusting the grammar. They are changing the text.
      • You know who else changes as gods to like God here? The New King James Version. The NIV does. And the list goes on.
    • One more:
      • Isaiah 5:14 (KJV) Therefore hell hath enlarged herself, and opened her mouth without measure: and their glory, and their multitude, and their pomp, and he that rejoiceth, shall descend into it.
      • NSRB changes hell to the transliterated Sheol.
        • picture
      • The NSRB editors claim their updates are helpful. Changing a translation to a transliteration is not helpful. They think they are correcting mistakes in the King James Bible with this, not just “updating” old words.
      • You know who else makes this “update?” The NKJV. And the ESV.
      • Don’t try to argue that hell is a mistake here. Fine. You go get yourself an ESV and read that if you think so. Don’t change words in the King James to make it line up with modern translation and keep calling it a King James.
    • So why do they do this?
      • Obviously, God is not the same as gods, and gods is not hard to understand. We know what gods
      • Obviously, Sheol is not easier to understand than hell, so that is not just “updating” the language either.
      • And nobody is going to be overwhelmed with Biblical understanding because somebody changes bottles to skins. So why?
    • A gateway to the Critical Text of the modern versions
      • All you need to know is written in the introduction, where it says:
        • “improvements and further helps to the reader…” because “additional light has been thrown upon the Scriptures by textual scholarship…”
        • You know, all those helpful corrections you find in modern versions because of textual criticism—they’re just helping you out by introducing a few of those to you in the NSRB. They call it an Authorized King James so you’ll trust it.
      • The NKJV is no different in this goal. To wit:
        • Under the pretense of “updating the language,” the word-count for blood dropped from 447 (KJV) to 424 (NKJV), and not surprisingly, bringing it closer to the modern translations based on the Critical Text.
        • The archaic and quaint hell went from 54 appearances in the KJV to a much less difficult 32 in the NKJV, instead using transliterations of the Hebrew and Greek since the English was so difficult.
        • Of course, blood and hell are not difficult for the modern reader; the goal is to introduce what the editors think are corrections to the text that you are missing out on by not using the NIV or NASB.
      • Don’t see the pattern yet?
        • 1 Timothy 6:20 (KJV) O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called:
        • When the 1885 English Revised Version was published, the word science was changed to knowledge
          • 1 Timothy 6:20 (RV) O Timothy, guard that which is committed unto thee, turning away from the profane babblings and oppositions of the knowledge which is falsely so called;
          • Later, the American Standard Version (1901) and Revised Standard Version (1946) also made this “helpful substitution.” Isn’t the science of textual criticism grand?
        • NSRB, claiming to be the Authorized King James, changes science to knowledge.
          • picture
        • NKJV changes science to
        • NIV (1973, 1984, 2011—take your pick) changes science to knowledge.
        • ESV changes science to knowledge.
        • NASB changes science to knowledge.
        • The NRSB says it’s an Authorized King James Bible. Yet the King James Bible used the word knowledge 172 times and not in this verse. The translators were well aware of the word knowledge but used science For some reason, those textual critics… who regard what they do as a science… figured that we should “update” science to knowledge, matching all of the modern critical-text-based translations in doing so.
        • And by the way, the next time you hear a preacher using a King James come to 1Ti 6:20 and then pull out his Strong’s Lexicon to “helpfully substitute” the word knowledge here, you might wonder why he thinks he needs to make your Bible sound more like a New International Version than a King James…
      • And in the end, if this doesn’t move people closer to the false modern Bibles, it certainly ends in confusion!
        • Yea, hath God said? (Ge 3:1) Look back at the blog post comment that got me started on this. Somebody thinks that the real King James Bible is “nonsensical” because it has the word “bottles” while his so-called King James (the New Scofield Reference Bible of 1967) has “wine skins” (so does the NKJV and other modern versions).
        • In the end, this guy and many others have been confused and deceived because of these changes made under the pretense of “updating the language.” They can’t spot a real Bible because of it.

Video: My new favorite Bible, from CBP.

I don’t really mean to be a “Bible review guy.” There are plenty of those on YouTube already. But I have my new favorite Bible and I just can’t help but share it with you.

Church Bible Publishers (not to be confused with Local Church Bible Publishers) is really doing a great job coming out with high-quality King James Bibles. And when I learned that they were printing my favorite text block, the Cambridge Cameo, I had to get my hands on one.

I liked it so much I ended up using their “build a Bible” system to get one with a full-yapp goatskin cover and custom ribbons. I expect this will hold me for many years to come!

And so nobody has to ask: CBP did not send me these for review. I purchased them.

Video: Inspiration: The Original Autographs Only?

Is the popular idea of “inspiration” of Scripture being limited to the original manuscripts correct? A video examining:

  1. The modern definition of “inspiration,”
  2. The Bible’s own use of the term,
  3. The origin of the “original autographs only” theory, and
  4. The adoption of this theory into modern Christian scholarship.

Suggested reading: Which Bible Would Jesus Use? and The Word: God will Keep it.

Continue reading “Video: Inspiration: The Original Autographs Only?”

Video: Can a Bible translation be perfect and inspired?

Can a translation of God’s word be perfect?

Man’s wisdom says a perfect translation from one language to another is impossible. The Bible shows us something completely different. Will you trust God or men?

Continue reading “Video: Can a Bible translation be perfect and inspired?”

Video: The Five Precepts of Matthew 4:4

Emulating Christ’s Attitude Toward Scripture

Examining the five precepts taught by Jesus Christ in Matthew 4:4.

What did the Lord Jesus Christ teach about Scripture? What example did he set for us to follow, with regard to a proper attitude toward Scripture?

(In addition to the verses discussed in this video, also study 1Peter 1:23-25; 2Peter 1:19-21; and in understanding how to live by every word one must study and rightly divide it: 2Ti 2:15.)

Outline Follows:

Continue reading “Video: The Five Precepts of Matthew 4:4”

Video: Modern Textual Criticism and Acts 8:37 with James White

In my previous video on whether or not a Bible version should be a preference, I quoted from James White’s book, The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust the Modern Translations. This prompted White to post a video response to me, in which he goes over the textual issues of Acts 8:37.

Here is my reply.

At first, I considered ignoring it, but, I realized there is an excellent illustration here. In my response I dissect White’s attempt at waiving off the importance of this passage and the methodology employed by modern textual critics to excise (or excuse the excising of) verses from the Bible.

In the end, we see that his approach to the Bible and to his own critical materials is arbitrary and devoid of belief.

Minor update/comment: Throughout this video I refer to James White as “Dr. White.” I was unaware at the time of recording that Mr. White does not have a doctorate from an accredited institution. Frankly I don’t find that issue important, but, it was probably incorrect to continually refer to him as Dr. White in this video.

Also, the Byzantine text he shows is simply the Robinson/Peirpoint Majority text. It is not a text anybody ever used in any church anywhere; it is a contrived text form that just shows “majority” Greek mss. readings. He brings it into the display as if it adds something to the discussion, but, it has already been accepted that Acts 8.37 is a minority Greek mss. reading. It’s just more flash and no substance. I didn’t want to get too bogged down responding to every little detail but that one probably should have had more discussion because people are asking about it.

Video: Do modern Bible versions really have “everything in there?”

My previous video blog was a short introduction to some of the problems that arise when Christians treat their Bible version as a personal preference. As part of that presentation I demonstrate the false theology of Christ given by the Old Testament in the New International Version.

The most common response to this is for a modern version proponent to claim that there is no real problem because the NIV still contains “all” of the doctrines in other verses.  Here is my response to that.

If you already watched the previous video, please bear with the first minute or so, because I do include some review of the previous material for the benefit of viewers who aren’t watching these in order.

So, are Bible versions really like jars of spaghetti sauce?

I’m not trying to make fun of anyone with this. The point is to highlight the problem with holding to the idea that diminishing support for things like the deity of Christ isn’t really a big deal.

Also, this video makes reference to the Westcott and Hort Magic Marker Binge, which see.

Video: Does it really matter which Bible version you prefer?

For this video I decided I would revisit my one of my initial objections to the whole “Bible version controversy” issue. Before I learned about the Textus Receptus, the Critical (Alexandrian) Text, or who Tischendorf, Wesscott, or Hort were, I had to be shown that modern popular Bible versions are vastly different from the Bible of the reformation in significant, substantive ways. Ways that affect core Christian doctrines. Ways that go far beyond how a text “feels” or how one “prefers” God’s word be presented. Differences that can cripple Christians and their ability to combat false doctrines or even learn true doctrine.
A complete outline of the talk follows.

Continue reading “Video: Does it really matter which Bible version you prefer?”