Jehovah's Witnesses - 04_03 - Dan Corner and False Bibles

social_media_nav_bar

SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW

1. Regarding the article you found online from "Evangelical Outreach", I have corresponded with Dan Corner and am well acquainted with his beliefs. The article mentions only a few of the very well-worn falsehoods presented against the authority of the King James Bible. But, allow me to build your faith in the word of God by exposing some of the errors in that article.

a. Yes, the originals are long gone (which proponents of modern versions often forget when they so frequently and authoritatively pretend to cite what "the originals" say). But God himself promised to preserve his words (Ps 12:6,7). So, if our final authority says that his words will be preserved forever, then they were, and are, and shall be preserved - with or without the originals.

b. Mr Corner's argument is meant to imply that translations are weaker than the originals.

1) But, in my previous reply, I gave scriptural reasons, from our final authority, that soundly refute that argument and prove that translations are as authoritative as the originals. Two of those examples were:

a) In Genesis chapters 42-44, Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian. His words were translated by a translator into Hebrew. (Gen 42:23) Those Hebrew words were then written in the Old Testament Hebrew that you claim is perfect. You can't have it both ways. This passage is either perfect in the Hebrew, or it has lost something because it is merely a Hebrew translation of the words that the Holy Ghost divinely inspired Joseph to speak in Egyptian (II Pet 1:21). (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect?)

b) In Acts 22, Paul spoke to the Jews completely in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). But Luke wrote those words in Greek in the New Testament which you claim is perfect. You can't have it both ways. It is either perfect in the Greek New Testament, or it has lost something in the translation from Hebrew to Greek because it is merely a translation. (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect?)

2) I could also mention God's opinion and his use of the word "translate" to prove that the state of a translation is better than the state of the original. Enoch was translated from this world into the next – an obvious improvement of state; Saul's kingdom was translated into David's kingdom – an obvious improvement of state; and we will be translated from the kingdom of darkness into the kingdom of his dear son – an obvious improvement of state.

3) So, in contrast to Mr. Corner's opinion, God's own use of the word "translate" or "translated" in our final authority reflects God's opinion that the process of translation strengthens or improves upon the state of the original. That doesn't make the original less than perfect; it just makes the translation more useful and desirable to the person benefiting from it.

4) God allowed the first two "originals" of the book of Jeremiah to be destroyed – one was cut up and burned by a heathen king (Jer 36:23) and the other was cast into the Euphrates River upon the command of God himself (Jer 51:63). We are only able to read the book of Jeremiah because a third "original" was written. So, the scriptural practice as defined by our final authority is that God does not worship "originals" and that he preserves his word forever in translations and copies - without needing the originals.

c. To quote Mr Corner in his article: "KJV onlyism is so rampant with misinformation that it is pathetic. It is shamefully sad that some aggressively argue with a half truth that reputable translations leave words out of the Scriptures. (The argument could be turned around to say that the KJV added words.)"

1) What is "KJV onlyism"? He doesn't define it and I know of no one who believes the radical things that he suggests.

2) What is a "reputable translation"? Who decides whether it is reputable, and how is it determined to be reputable? What standard or measure is used to make that judgment?

3) This is not simply a case of turning an argument around and saying that the King James added words. As I mentioned in paragraph 2c above, the new versions omit entire verses, whether you compare them with the King James Bible, or not. They blatantly reveal the omissions by way of numbered verses that are completely blank. That is completely objective evidence against the new versions.

4) Why would anyone write a book with blank, numbered, paragraphs in it?? But that is what MEN who wrote many new 'bible' versions have done.

5) If a person insists that 8 plus 5 equals 11, then I would be perfectly correct in concluding that the person is wrong. And that would not be an opinion. It would be a fact. It would be a fact that is established by universal, immutable laws - in this case, the laws of mathematics. But, one of Mr. Corner's favourite translations, the New International Version (NIV) teaches that 8 plus 5 is 11, when it reports how_many_men_of_war_King_David_numbered_in_Israel. So, in this point alone, I am correct in concluding that the NIV is wrong.

d. The King James Bible did not 'evolve' from the Textus Receptus nor from any earlier English bible; so changes in those documents are irrelevant to the issue of whether the King James Bible is authentically God's word in English. God, himself, preserved his word, as he had promised - assembling words that had been scattered throughout thousands of manuscripts, purging them of impurities with which they were found (as silver is tried in a furnace of earth – Ps 12:6), and publishing them under the authority - and in the name - of a king (Eccl 8:4), wherein there is power.

e. Regarding Erasmus, God's word transcends every vessel (man) that God uses to convey it.

1) King David was an adulterer and murderer, but God highly honoured him and wrote much of his word through the lips and pen of David anyway. Similar things can be said of all whom God used to write his word.

2) Therefore, even if Erasmus was as 'bad' as Mr. Corner suggests – he would fit right in with the authors of scripture.

3) But to set the record somewhat straight, Mr. Corner's description of Erasmus is (to use his own words) "rampant with misinformation" and "pathetic". Anyone caring about the truth should objectively investigate the life and beliefs of Erasmus.

4) As one refutation of Mr. Corner's "misinformation", I would ask why, in 1559, the Pope banned all of Erasmus's writings, forbidding them to be read or published, if Erasmus had been such a 'good Catholic'.

f. Here is one of the real winner quotes from Mr. Corner's article: "The KJV only movement implies there was no Word of God until 1611 when the KJV translators translated the Greek and Hebrew into the Elizabethan English of that day. Question: What did people do for 1600 years before the KJV came out? Obviously the Word of God was around before that time and without the KJV. Hence, their whole thesis crumbles to the ground on this point alone."

1) I do not profess to be a KJV-Onlyite, as described and implied by Mr. Corner, and I know of no one (though one may exist) who believes that God's word didn't exist until 1611. That is a ridiculous assertion, and it clearly fits the "rampant…misinformation that is pathetic…that some aggressively argue with a half truth…"

2) God's word was in the beginning. God's word will be in the end – even after heaven and earth pass away. He said it clearly at least three times (Matt 24:35; Mark 13:31; Luke 21:33). Obviously God's word existed in the manuscripts prior to 1611. The fact that they were compiled and translated into a very useful form for us in English is consistent with God's promise of preservation and his views of translation.

3) Mr. Corner does not understand that the King James Bible uses biblical English; not Elizabethan English.

4) Who suggests that God's word didn't exist until 1611? It is Mr. Corner's rhetoric that "crumbles to the ground" whenever the truth exposes his hatred for the King James Bible. (Sure, he pays lip service to its effectiveness in blessing and saving millions of people – as he must – but only because he must.)

g. Mr Corner says, "If one would strictly examine the KJV alone, there are many problems with it that would shock most of these KJV onlyites. Again, they have heard only one side of all this- the side that is causing division and promoting a very hard, if not sometimes impossible, translation to understand."

1) Altogether, I have spent somewhat in the order of 4,000 hours (about two full years) studying this issue alone. Mr. Corner, go ahead, shock me with the "many problems".

2) I find the suggestion insulting, inappropriate and wrong that those of us who believe the King James Bible to be God's only word in English are shallow thinkers ('having heard only one side of all this').

3) I clearly remember sitting in church since 1969 when the Pastor, as he would often do, asked the congregation to stand and to read together from God's word. No mention was made about what "version" we should use. No one had even heard of a "KJV-onlyite" at that time (note the derogatory label). And yet we stood and read IN UNISON, declaring the wonderful words of God aloud. Who then is causing the "division", Mr. Corner? Who was it that took "sides" to cause this division when, at the beginning, we were all reading the King James Bible together in unison?

4) A "very hard … translation to understand", Mr. Corner? The King James Bible?

a) Do you know nothing of the studies that classify the King James language at the fifth grade level and most modern versions closer to eighth grade?

b) Do you know nothing about the cognitive scaffolding inherent in the King James Bible upon which children can learn to read unlike they can from any other book in print?

c) Do you know nothing about the built-in dictionary inherent in the King James Bible and the comparable confusion in all other versions?

d) Do you know nothing about the mathematical patterns and metre and rhythm that are woven throughout the King James Bible that have no match in any other book of any time or any place on earth?

5) Do you understand anything at all about grammar - regarding how that the singular, plural, subjective and objective attributes of pronouns are available to us ONLY in the King James Bible - as a result of it employing "T" pronouns (thee, thou, thine), "Y" pronouns (ye, you, your), Thou/Ye, and Thee/You, respectively!??

6) You say that the King James Bible is very hard, if not impossible, to understand. Well, perhaps you could shed some light on your own favourite bible, Mr. Corner, the NIV, and if you have difficulty then you could have a child check the word for you in my, 'very difficult, if not impossible to understand', King James Bible; and enlighten you.

a) Your word in Ex 28:20 is "filigree". What might that word mean?

b) Your word in Deut 32:11 is "pinions". What might that word mean?

c) Your word in Est 1:6 is "porphyry". What might that word mean?

d) Your word in Ps 58:7 is "blunted". What might that word mean?

e) Your word in Dan 11:43 is "Nubians". What might that word mean?

f) What is "cors" (I Kings 4:22); What is "portico" (I Kings 6:3)? What is "poultice" (II Kings 20:7)? What is "satraps"? (Est 3:12) What is "portent" (Is 20:3)? What is "mina" (Luke 19:6)? What is a "carnelian"? (Rev 4:3)

g) A child in grade five or younger could easily read what these words really are in the King James Bible. Those of you who lie and or misrepresent the word of God to discourage people from reading it and who draw people away to buy a host of new versions and make the likes of Rupert Murdoch wealthy will have a great deal to answer for before God.

7) Don't you find it just a little bit disturbing, Mr. Corner, that Harper-Collins owns and profits from sales of your favourite Bible, the NIV, while concurrently publishing and profiting from sales of the Satanic bible? Shouldn't there be some type of conflict within you about that? Don't your spiritual senses 'discern' some level of evil in that? (Heb 5:14)

8) Mr. Corner, perhaps you should stop attacking God's word in English and educate yourself somewhat regarding even these few attributes of the King James bible that put all so-called modern bibles to shame. You are welcome to start with our article on pronouns, which will highlight for you some of the information that you are missing in your favourite bible of the day as a result of removing what you pejoratively refer to as "Elizabethan English".

2. Terry, you say that you have a solid foundation of biblical knowledge. I do not question your confidence in your beliefs; nor your sincerity. But you say that your foundation is Christ. Jesus and Paul both warned about false Christs that would arise. The Jesus of the Watchtower is not the Jesus of the King James Bible – one is "a god" and the other is the only "God".

3. Furthermore, Jesus is the word that became flesh (John chapter 1). If the word that you use is an eclectic assembly of passages and ideas from books that are full of contradictions, errors, and omissions, then the foundation upon which you place your beliefs, the word in flesh, is equally unreliable. The Jesus in whom you trust is the incarnation of those contradictions, errors and omissions. He is "another Jesus", and "another Christ"; and not the Jesus of scripture. (II Cor 11:4)

Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)

Mike.

(Although we don't necessarily agree with all of his teachings, we appreciate the thoughts and research of Dr. Samuel Gipp whose teachings contributed to our understanding of the bible version issue presented here.)