Ransom said:
Perhaps I wrote badly; I do not believe that God dictated the words of the KJV to the translators.
Brother Will Kinney's Testimony and how he came to believe the KJB
- Thread starter Biblebeliever
- Start date
Perhaps I wrote badly; I do not believe that God dictated the words of the KJV to the translators.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Will had changed this a few months ago in the current version.praise_yeshua said:
https://willjkinney.wordpress.com/2015/08/09/acts-837-inspired-scripture-or-not/
And there is a redirect from the first to the second that works when the url is put into Facebook, but does not work on a direct url bar entry. I let Will know, thanks for the heads-up.
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:
Kenney is still being deceptive in referencing the Peshitta in Lamsa's translation.
Lamsa didn't "translate" the Peshitta. He merged various sources and basically produced a work of his own.
Kenney is still trying to use the authority of the Peshitta to justify his claims. Lamsa never claimed to have exclusively used the Peshitta for his work.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
You are factually incorrect. Lamsa did translate the Peshitta, and his publisher referred to one or two specific mss. Lamsa read the Peshitta manuscripts and translated, OT and NT. For the NT, you can compare his translations with Murdoch and Etheridge online (and Paul Younan of the Gospels) which similarly are Syriac NT translations. Some people make a minor distinction between Peshitta and Peshitto, the eastern and western Syriac texts, others do not. Younan and his Aramaic primacy friends do in fact acknowledge that Lamsa translated the Peshitta. They might be concerned that he was aware of the AV excellence in forming his English, and let that influence some phrasing, but that is neither here or there, as translators frequently stay in the style of existing Bibles, and have a lot of target language leeway. Modern versions following the decrepit Critical Text frequently do similar, including a verse or section that they are supposed to consider non-scripture. That does not mean that they are not translating the CT, it just means that they have a bit less of a blunderama text.praise_yeshua said:
In a couple of cases Lamsa likely referenced printed editions of the Peshitta that included Reformation Bible corrections, and Acts 8:37 is one of them. Another was the heavenly witnesses. I do not know of any others. It is well known that printed editions of the Peshitta have included these corrections. The Greek orthodox did similar in correcting their Greek Byzantine text in the printed editions.
While I would not use the Lamsa edition as an evidence in this case, what Will wrote is in fact accurate. And he quickly made the correction to his writing when the error of simply saying the Peshitta was pointed out. Feel free to write him if you think he should modify the page more. You can tell him you find the reference technically accurate, but misleading. Will does not claim to be a Peshitta expert and would likely consider a cordial request.
Will's papers on evidences are not perfect, but they are generally excellent. And 1,000 times better than the junque put out by modern version, CT defenders.
And if you want full accuracy on evidences on major variants, I suggest you join the discussion forums with James Snapp and myself, Daniel Buck and some others, as we go over the ECW (early church writer) evidences with a fine tooth comb. And the manuscripts (e.g. Snapp went over the Acts 8:37 mss in detail.) You could learn a lot, e.g. why Acts 8:37 and the traditional Mark ending with the resurrection appearances and the Pericope Adulterae are in fact definitely scripture, even though those 25 verses are falsely accused by the Critical Text of being interpolations. And I will share with you many fascinating details on the heavenly witnesses. You can learn about the "Father, forgive them" prayer in Gethsemane. And "God manifest in the flesh.". Dozens, even hundreds, of other major Bible differences. All this might help you to know the pure word of God, if that is your actual concern.
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:
Avery......
You spent all that time writing a response and destroyed what you were trying to defend in this one statement above.
We were talking about Acts 8:37 specifically. You admit that Lamsa used a "corrected" text that included Acts 8:37. He did not use the Peshitta because the Peshitta didn't include Acts 8:37.
Again. Kenney is being deceptive. He is including a translation where Lamsa "added" to the Peshitta..... to make the argument that the old Syriac text included Acts 8:37. Anyone with any honesty....... would admit this. Its really very simple.
Some claim that the Peshitta includes 5th century Byzantine readings. That might very well be true to some degree. However, this can't be rightfully attributed to an Old Syriac tradition of the text. Which is the primary influence of the Peshitta.
Does Kenny even mention the fact that the Peshitta doesn't include 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation?
Its amazing how you rabid KJVOist "PIECE" together a few fragments of truth here and there..... to make your silly case for KJV superiority. You never tell the whole story. Never.
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:
What discussion forum are you referencing?
Why not here?
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
py, what you demonstrate is that you are far more interested in posturing, a technical quibble against the writings of a fine AV defender (who corrected the actual error) than whether the powerful baptism testimony of Acts 8:37 is scripture, or the abominable tampering of man.
This is typical of the nouveau Version paradigm ... the only thing important is to be contra the authority and excellence of the TR and AV.
The forums I mentioned include NT Textual Criticism (James Snapp) and PureBible (my forum) on Facebook. These are designed as learning and sharing forums, not debate forums, which are elsewhere.
And I would discuss more here if posters were substantive. I like the fact that it searches well, has decent RTF and does not get purged. Even the moderation has been reasonable. There are only a few boards (different environment than Facebook) that have these qualities with a Christian and Bible discussion orientation, and some of those are doctrinally limited, e.g. to Baptists or Calvinist doctrine.
Steven Avery
This is typical of the nouveau Version paradigm ... the only thing important is to be contra the authority and excellence of the TR and AV.
The forums I mentioned include NT Textual Criticism (James Snapp) and PureBible (my forum) on Facebook. These are designed as learning and sharing forums, not debate forums, which are elsewhere.
And I would discuss more here if posters were substantive. I like the fact that it searches well, has decent RTF and does not get purged. Even the moderation has been reasonable. There are only a few boards (different environment than Facebook) that have these qualities with a Christian and Bible discussion orientation, and some of those are doctrinally limited, e.g. to Baptists or Calvinist doctrine.
Steven Avery
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2014
- Messages
- 4,347
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 0
Steven Avery said:
Translation.....
"You're correct. I just don't want to admit that I'm technically wrong"....
Some advice for you Avery. If you going to provide references for your beliefs.... then being "technically accurate" is of the utmost importance. You're make my case for me. Its important not to add to the evidence. That is what you, Kenney, and others are doing. You're misusing the evidence. Acts 8:37 is not part of the Syriac textual orgins of the NT. Neither are the entire books of 2 Peter, 2 John, 3 John, Jude and Revelation.
- Joined
- Dec 23, 2012
- Messages
- 500
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 16
Much ado about very little. I suggested you write a cordial letter to Will and hash it out. I helped out by contributing to the actual error being corrected by contacting Will. And in my writing on Acts 8:37 I do not use or reference Lamsa.
The evidences for the verse as scripture are simply overwhelming. They are based on Latin, minority Greek, versional, Ante-Nicene ECW and later ECW referencing and the glaring lacuna in the corruption text. You can add the preservational imperative. You can learn a lot by a close study of the evidences, including textual theory comparing ease of inclusion and omission.
And I was trying to see if you had any interest in what is the pure Bible text. Apparently not, as a typical contra, posturing is the game.
You are factually wrong again about the five books. They were included in the Syriac early enough to be part of Syriac textual evidences, just not the original Peshitta. The date of the first NT Peshitta is also a matter of dispute.
The evidences for the verse as scripture are simply overwhelming. They are based on Latin, minority Greek, versional, Ante-Nicene ECW and later ECW referencing and the glaring lacuna in the corruption text. You can add the preservational imperative. You can learn a lot by a close study of the evidences, including textual theory comparing ease of inclusion and omission.
And I was trying to see if you had any interest in what is the pure Bible text. Apparently not, as a typical contra, posturing is the game.
You are factually wrong again about the five books. They were included in the Syriac early enough to be part of Syriac textual evidences, just not the original Peshitta. The date of the first NT Peshitta is also a matter of dispute.
Will Kinney suggested that God may have preserved His perfect words ?in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation? (Flaming Torch, April-June, 2003, p. 18).
Evidently he is uninformed or misinformed about the Waldensian Bibles.
Evidently he is uninformed or misinformed about the Waldensian Bibles.
Biblebeliever said:
The same use of fallacies are evident in Will Kinney's human KJV-only reasoning as would be found in yours. Fallacies [false arguments] such as the fallacy of begging the question, the fallacy of special pleading, the fallacy of false dilemma, the fallacy of composition, the fallacy of guilt by association, etc. are used in erroneous KJV-only reasoning.
Will Kinney assumes his own unproven, non-scriptural KJV-only premises to be true, but he fails to prove them to be actually true. Thus, he jumps to wrong conclusions based on unproven, not-true premises.
The use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards (an abomination to the LORD) are evident in his Bible translation comparisons since he does not apply consistently and justly the same exact measures/standards to the making of the KJV that he would attempt to apply to the making of other English Bible translations.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
praise_yeshua said:
No, he isn't. many of his "corrections" of newer BVs has been shown wrong, that the newer version has the better translation of many old-language terms. A clear example is Ex. 20:13, "Thou shalt not KILL" in the KJV. (NOT "KJB") The much-better rendering, and the one that GOD meant is "You shall not MURDER".
And, Mr. Kinney refuses to face the FACT that the KJVO myth has absolutely no Scriptural support. That fact alone makes KJVO false.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2019
- Messages
- 1,034
- Reaction score
- 491
- Points
- 83
I am not familiar with Will Kinney. I noticed in post #30 a reference to his article in the Flaming Torch. I just went back into my Flaming Torch running file to read that article. He says "an educated guess would be that God preserved His perfect words in the Old Latin Bibles and then in the Waldensian latinized Bibles till the time of the Reformation." I find it strange that God would preserve His perfect words in Latin rather than the original Greek, but as Kinney says, that is just a "guess."
Many have believed that the Waldenses passed on the "pure Bible," based on the book "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" published in 1930 by Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist, and reprinted by David Otis Fuller in "Which Bible?" in 1970. Wilkinson states on page 201, "it is no wonder that they [the Waldenses] knew and possessed the Vulgate. But the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible."
Thomas Armitage, in his "History of the Baptists," Vol. 1, p. 295, states that Peter Waldo "put his money to a use uncommon in those days. He employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people." If the Waldenses already had "their own" Italic Bible, why did Waldo go to all the trouble and expense of having the supposedly "corrupted" Vulgate translated into the Romance dialect? Here again, it makes no sense to me that God would providentially preserve an infallible text of the original Greek through Latin translations rather than through faithfully transmitted Greek manuscripts. But hey, what do I know about it?
Many have believed that the Waldenses passed on the "pure Bible," based on the book "Our Authorized Bible Vindicated" published in 1930 by Benjamin Wilkinson, a Seventh Day Adventist, and reprinted by David Otis Fuller in "Which Bible?" in 1970. Wilkinson states on page 201, "it is no wonder that they [the Waldenses] knew and possessed the Vulgate. But the Italic, the earlier Latin, was their own Bible."
Thomas Armitage, in his "History of the Baptists," Vol. 1, p. 295, states that Peter Waldo "put his money to a use uncommon in those days. He employed Stephen of Ansa and Bernard Ydross to translate the Gospels from the Latin Vulgate of Jerome into the Romance dialect for the common people." If the Waldenses already had "their own" Italic Bible, why did Waldo go to all the trouble and expense of having the supposedly "corrupted" Vulgate translated into the Romance dialect? Here again, it makes no sense to me that God would providentially preserve an infallible text of the original Greek through Latin translations rather than through faithfully transmitted Greek manuscripts. But hey, what do I know about it?
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
Much of Mr. Kinney's stuff is guesswork, as is the KJVO myth in general.
We must remember the KJVO myth has absolutely NO Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. God is NOT limited to preserving His word only in the KJV in English. This is entirely a MAN-MADE theory with no real authority behind it.
We must remember the KJVO myth has absolutely NO Scriptural support & therefore cannot be true. God is NOT limited to preserving His word only in the KJV in English. This is entirely a MAN-MADE theory with no real authority behind it.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
I ran into Will Kinney on Facebook. I joined his FB group entitled King James Only Debate. May not be 100% accurate on title but it definitely had the word "debate" in it.
After joining, Kinney asked me to state which translation of the Bible is the one true version. I told him it's far more complicated than that. He demanded I state which version or admit that the word of God has not been preserved. I told him that I certainly believe the word of God has been preserved but it's not as simple as he wants to make it. He booted me from the group.
Truly bizarre for a "debate" group. Indeed, other KJV debate groups on FB have been far more open and balanced...and Kinney is something of a joke in those groups, even among KJVO supporters.
Will Kinney is a human KJVO tract. He can spout his points, but any attempt to engage in meaningful discussion, much less debate, and he shuts down. If you challenge anything he says with evidence, he ignores you. That's just pathetic. I'd respect him if he'd reply to a point with an argument, even if I disagree with it, but he is really just a tedious, repetitive monologue.
After joining, Kinney asked me to state which translation of the Bible is the one true version. I told him it's far more complicated than that. He demanded I state which version or admit that the word of God has not been preserved. I told him that I certainly believe the word of God has been preserved but it's not as simple as he wants to make it. He booted me from the group.
Truly bizarre for a "debate" group. Indeed, other KJV debate groups on FB have been far more open and balanced...and Kinney is something of a joke in those groups, even among KJVO supporters.
Will Kinney is a human KJVO tract. He can spout his points, but any attempt to engage in meaningful discussion, much less debate, and he shuts down. If you challenge anything he says with evidence, he ignores you. That's just pathetic. I'd respect him if he'd reply to a point with an argument, even if I disagree with it, but he is really just a tedious, repetitive monologue.
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2012
- Messages
- 11,397
- Reaction score
- 2,410
- Points
- 113
- Location
- Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
ObadiahHaidabo said:
LOL! Wonder what would have happened if you had stated that the word of God was perfectly preserved in the NIV, the one Bible God approves of.
- Joined
- Apr 7, 2019
- Messages
- 6
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 1
Ransom said:
There is a satirical "The Message Bible Only" group on FB...I should have swiped some of their hilarious memes.
- Joined
- Dec 28, 2018
- Messages
- 71
- Reaction score
- 4
- Points
- 8
Obadiah, if you come across Kinney in any more FB pages, please ask him to provide SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth & watch him skeedaddle or immediately seek to remove you from the page. (That's why he rarely posts anywhere outside Internet sites or social media pages where he has no moderator authority.)
He's simply a wannabee author seeking to establish a database from which to write a book or something else he can sell.
He's simply a wannabee author seeking to establish a database from which to write a book or something else he can sell.