Jump to content
Online Baptist

Stop Lying About It!

Recommended Posts

 Stop Lying About It!


Why do so many Christians today continue to LIE about what they really believe about “the Bible”?  For example, James White SAYS he believes The Bible IS the infallible words of God. I asked him this question personally on his radio program. But when I asked Mr. White where we can see a copy of this infallible Bible he PROFESSES to believe in, he immediately changes the subject.  The simple fact is this - 

When James White, and others like him, says "I believe the Bible IS the infallible words of God" he is not referring to a real, tangible, in print, hold it in your hands and read Book at all. He is referring to a mythical, imaginary, hypothetical, invisible and non-existent, phantom "bible" that he has never seen, does not have and certainly cannot give to anybody else.

In other words, he is professing a fantasy faith in a Fantasy Bible. And then he thinks we King James Bible believers who have a real Bible printed on paper between two covers we can actually hold in our hands and give to anybody that asks to see it are "a cult", and even heretics.

In his way of thinking, those of us who confess faith in a tangible, preserved, and inerrant Bible are "heretics" and "cultic", but people like him who LIE when they say they believe the Bible IS (as though it really exists) the infallible words of God" are somehow "Orthodox".

Actually, the polls show that there are many who, at least privately in an anonymous poll, are beginning to be more honest about their beliefs and admit that they do NOT believe “The Bible IS the inerrant words of God”.


 See the documented facts for this here: “The Bible is NOT the infallible words of God” - 





God is a God of truth and He cannot lie  (Titus 1:2) and we His people are supposed to speak truth one with another. “Wherefore putting away lying, speak every man truth with his neighbour: (Eph. 4:25)


God says in His word - “Lying lips are abomination to the LORD: but they that deal truly are His delight.”  Proverbs 12:22


God’s word also tells us that the last days will be characterized by LYING. “Now the Spirit speaketh expressly, that in the latter times some shall depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils (Yea, hath God said...?) SPEAKING LIES IN HYPOCRISY...” 1 Timothy 4:1-2


If you go to almost any Christian website or Church home page they tell you what they supposedly believe about “The Bible”. You will usually read words to the effect of “We believe the Bible IS the inerrant and infallible word of God.”  Notice their use of a present tense verb “is” as though it were something that EXISTS now. 


However, if you press them about it, you soon come to find out they are not talking about any real or tangible “hold it in your hands, read and believe every word is true” type of Bible. No, they don’t really believe such a thing exists.  Then they begin their backtracking, Double-Speak Dance by saying something like “Oh well, only the originals ARE inspired and inerrant.”  Well, my Christian friend, there ARE no originals and everybody knows it.


Two such prominent Liars and "highly respected men in the Christian Community" are James White and Daniel Wallace. Both men profess to believe "The Bible IS the infallible words of God."  But if you ask either of them where we can get a copy of this inspired and inerrant words of God Bible they SAY they believe in, they will NEVER tell us. 


See 'James White - the Protestant Pope of the New Vatican Versions" here -



Likewise Daniel Wallace, professor at Dallas Theological Seminary and main creator of the well known NET version,  has written an article called "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is the Best Translation Available Today”.  See my rebuttal to his article here.  




The very first thing Dan Wallace says in his article where he criticizes the King James Bible is:  “First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that THE BIBLE IS THE WORD OF GOD, INERRANT, INSPIRED AND OUR FINAL AUTHORITY FOR FAITH AND LIFE.”  


Notice that Dan Wallace is using a present tense verb here - IS - when he professes to believe The Bible IS the word of God, inerrant, inspired and our final authority."  Sounds great, right?  So where IS this inerrant Bible he piously professes to believe in? 


A little later in this same article Dan Wallace writes - "NO TRANSLATION IS INFALLIBLE”.  Wait a minute. What's going on here? At this point it behooves us to ask Dan Wallace and James White and others like them, WHERE exactly IS this "inerrant and inspired Bible" you guys piously PROFESS to believe in?  Do you perhaps have an UN-translated Bible in “the original languages” of Hebrew and Greek that you can show us that you honestly believe IS the inspired and infallible words of God?  Not a chance. They will NEVER actually SHOW you this inerrant Bible they SAY they believe in, and they know they can't. In simple, biblical words, folks, they are lying. 


Ad hominem


At this point in the argument I usually hear from other "Bible agnostics" (they don't know for sure what God may or may not have written) and unbelievers in the infallibility of ANY Bible in ANY language comments like - "Hey, you're using "ad hominem" arguments and I'm not going to listen to you." 


The fancy Latin words "ad hominem" simply mean "against the man" and are usually used by those who cannot answer your arguments to mean "You are attacking the man and not his arguments" and it is appealing to a person's feelings and prejudices rather than his intellect.


I think this whole "ad hominem" argument that has infected much of the professing Christian church today and people resort to calling you when they can't win the argument is nothing more than carnal, humanistic, worldly philosophy that turns men into wimps. The Bible itself, the prophets, the apostles and the Lord Jesus Christ would ALL be accused by today's compromising, "tolerant" Christians as being guilty of "ad hominem".


"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites!...ye shall receive the greater damnation." Matthew 23:14


"Ye fools and blind" Matthew 23:19


"Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! for ye are like unto whited sepulchres, which indeed appear beautiful outward, but are within full of dead men's bones, and of all uncleanness."  Matthew 23:27


"Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?"  Matthew 23:33


"Ye are of your father the devil, and the lusts of your father ye will do."  John8:44 


"Go ye,  and tell that FOX, Behold, I cast out devils..." Luke 13:32 (Jesus speaking of Herod)


"Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith." 2 Timothy 3:8


"But these, as natural brute beasts, made to be taken and destroyed, speak evil of the things that they understand not; and shall utterly perish in their own corruption."  2 Peter 2:12  (Peter speaking of the false prophets that would enter the church)


"His watchmen are blind: they are all ignorant, they are all dumb dogs, they cannot bark; sleeping, lying down, loving to slumber."  Isaiah 56:10


"The Cretians are always liars, evil beasts, slow bellies. This witness is true. Wherefore rebuke them sharply, that they may be sound in the faith."  Titus 12-13


"...thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars."  Revelation 2:2  


Note - After I wrote this article a brother posted an interesting article called The Virtue of Name Calling.  The man uses one of the modern bible versions in his article, but what he says is right on.  See his article here -




In the ongoing discussion about the Bible Version issue many Christians come up with an empty and meaningless statement like the one found in the well known Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy. 


See http://brandplucked.webs.com/chicagostate.htm


Translations of Scripture ARE the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original.”  Pious sounding statements like this are absurdly hypocritical on several levels.


 First of all, they have never seen a single word of these originals a day in their lives and the originals never did make up a 66 books in one volume Bible to begin with. Secondly, it is absurd to affirm that "translations are the Word of God to the extent that they faithfully represent the original", when they HAVE no original to compare ANY translation to!  So how could they possibly know if what they have come up with at their Bible of the Month Club “represents the original” or not? 


They try to give you the impression that they have “the originals” or a copy of them right there in front of them and they’re looking to see if their “late$t and be$t ver$ion” matches the originals or not. THEY ARE LYING.


To take the position of “ONLY the originals ARE inspired and inerrant” is to leave the Christian with no inerrant Bible NOW, and there is no getting around this obvious truth.


A far more honest “statement of inerrancy” based on what they really believe  (and most other Christians today too) would go something like this: “IF the originals had survived and WOULD HAVE BEEN placed into a single volume consisting of 66 inspired books, THEN THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN the inerrant and 100% historically true Bible we could have believed in.  Unfortunately God did not do it this way and so we just have to do the best we can with what we have and nobody is really sure about or in total agreement with everybody else about what any particular reading or text might be. So, go with God and hope for the best.”


Even AFTER I pointed these things out to a Christian man named Matthew, he came back with this statement: “I believe the originals are inerrant and I believe the stream and transmission we have is the best we can expect. I do not see any reason to assume error as we continue to strive forward we have more access to affirming a bible as close to the originals as possible.” 


He still doesn’t get it, does he.  There ARE no originals, so how could he possibly know he is “close to the originals as possible” or not?


By the way, this Matthew also posted that he “likes” the NKJV, the NASB and the ESV. Apparently he is either unaware or “sees no reason to assume error” in the fact that among these three modern versions they differ textually by literally thousands of words, including numerous whole verses, and a couple of them reject scores of Hebrew readings, and hundreds of verses have completely different meanings.  Matthew also tells us that he thinks Mark 16:9-20 and  1 John 5:7 don’t really belong in the Bible, but he still maintains that he “sees no reason to assume error.”  Does this modern day Christian’s lackadaisical attitude toward the words of the living God look anything like what we see in the Bible of those “that tremble at His word”? (Isaiah 66:5) 


All I am asking for is more honesty from folks when it comes to saying what they REALLY believe about the Bible.  I, along with thousands of other Christians, am a King James Bible believer.  We do not have to LIE when we say we believe the King James Bible IS the complete, inspired, inerrant and 100% historically true words of God. That is what we really believe.


You do not have to agree with us on this.  You may think we are completely wrong, ignorant, uneducated, “divisive”,  the spawn of Satan, a “Cult” or what seems to be even worse - a Ruckmanite :-0  But at least we tell you what we really believe and are not LYING ABOUT IT.


By the way, this same Matthew posted a poll called “Is KJV onlyism a cult”. It seems more than a tad ironic that in his mind Christians who actually believe their Bible IS the inerrant words of God belong to a Cult, but apparently those who don’t believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS inerrant are now considered to be “Orthodox”.  We do live in interesting times, don’t we.


It is comments like these when they call us Bible believers "a cult" or "idolaters" that caused me to write an article called  Are King James Bible believers "Idolaters"?  If interested, you can see it here - 



IF you are an “originals only” type of Christian who believes that ONLY the originals ARE/were inspired and inerrant, and that “No translation is perfect”, then just say so. Be honest about it. But don’t stand in the pulpit or write on your blog things like “We believe the Bible IS the inerrant words of God”, when you have no such Bible anywhere in print to give to anyone, and you know you don’t.  STOP LYING ABOUT IT!


If you are an “originals only” type of Christian with a non-existent, hypothetical “word of God” and all you can hope for is an ever changing, evolving, ballpark approximation to what you think God may or may not have written (though none of you agree even among yourselves), then just say so.  Go ahead with your “I believe only the originals were inspired and inerrant” and leave it at that. It is good that you say “The Bible contains the truth that Christ died for our sins and rose from the dead and those that believe on Him shall receive forgiveness of sins.”  We believe that too and want it preached.  But don’t use pious sounding words or religious phrases like “the Bible IS infallible” or “the Scriptures ARE the inerrant words of God” when you don’t really believe it for a second.  STOP LYING ABOUT IT!


“Hear the word of the LORD, ye that tremble at his word; Your brethren that hated you, that cast you out for my name’s sake, said, Let the LORD be glorified: but he shall appear to your joy, and they shall be ashamed.”  Isaiah 66:5


Will Kinney


Return to Articles - http://brandplucked.webs.com/kjbarticles.htm




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

With your infallible Bible could you please tell me who these prophets were and list chapters and verses so I can mark the references? Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene. 




Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Matthew 2:23 and Bible Mockers


A professing Bible believer at a Christian forum writes: “With your infallible Bible could you please tell me who these prophets were and list chapters and verses so I can mark the references? Matthew 2:23 And he came and dwelt in a city called Nazareth: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by THE PROPHETS, He shall be called a Nazarene.”


My response -

This is not just an issue with the King James Bible  but with ALL Bibles. They all say the same thing in Matthew 2:23.


There IS a reasonable way to explain this verse.


First, it should be pointed out that there is no specific prophet mentioned here, as there are in many other Scriptural references.  So, what is Matthew referring to when he is writing his gospel account under the inspiration of God?


I think it is actually pretty easy to explain.  


The Explanation.


“A Nazarene” was a well known term of contempt.  Those living in this region were in close contact with the vile Gentiles referred to as dogs. 


We see this in places like John 1:46. “And Nathanael said unto him (Philip), Can there any good thing come out of Nazareth? Philip saith unto him, Come and see.”


And in John 7:52 - “They (the Pharisees) answered and said unto him (Nicodemus), Art thou also of Galilee? Search, and look: for out of Galilee ariseth no prophet.”


And Luke 4:16 to 30 describe the reaction of those in the hometown of Nazareth reacted to the Lord Jesus when he began his public ministry.  Jesus goes into the synagogue and reads a section of Scripture from the book of Isaiah, and then tells the people “This day is this scripture fulfilled in your ears.”


And what was the reaction of the people from Nazareth?  Jesus said that “No prophet is accepted in his own country.” (Luke 4:24).


“And all they in the synagogue, when they heard these things, were filled with wrath. And rose up, and thrust him out of the city, and led him unto the brow of the hill whereon their city was built, that they might cast him down headlong.  But he passing through the midst of them went his way.


Even later in the book of Acts we see this association of Nazareth (the town where Jesus was brought up) as a term of contempt that was used against the apostle Paul, when the Jews are seeking his death before the governor Felix.


“For we have found this man a pestilent fellow, and a mover of sedition among all the Jews throughout the world, and a ringleader of the sect of the Nazarenes” (Acts 24:5)



What we see it that to be called a Nazarene was a term of contempt, and this is what we see foretold by several Old Testament prophets concerning their promised Messiah.


“But I am a worm, and no man; a reproach of men, and despised of the people.  All they that see me laugh me to scorn: they shoot out the lip, they shake their head”  (Psalms 22:6-7)


“I made sackcloth also my garment; and I became a proverb to them.”  (Psalms 69:11)


“Thou hast known my reproach, and my shame, and my dishonour: mine adversaries are all before thee.”  (Psalms 69:19)


“Thus saith the LORD, the Redeemer of Israel, and his Holy One, to him whom man despiseth, to him whom the nation abhorreth, to a servant of rulers…” (Isaiah 49:7)


“and when we shall see him, there is no beauty that we should desire him. He is despised and rejected of men; a man of sorrows, and acquainted with grief: and we hid as it were our faces from him: he is despised, and we esteemed him not.”  (Isaiah 53:2-3)


This understanding of what the verse means when it says “that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets, He shall be called a Nazarene.” is nothing new or unique.


Several Bible commentators have offered this same explanation.


Matthew Henry - “As a name of reproach and contempt. To be called a Nazarene, was to be called a despicable man, a man from whom no good was to be expected, and to whom no respect was to be paid. The devil first fastened this name upon Christ, to render him mean, and prejudice people against him, and it stuck as a nickname to him and his followers. Now this was not particularly foretold by any one prophet, but, in general, it was spoken by the prophets, that he should be despised and rejected of men (Isa. 53:2, 3), a Worm, and no man (Ps. 22:6, 7), that he should be an Alien to his brethren Ps. 69:7, 8. Let no name of reproach for religion's sake seem hard to us, when our Master was himself called a Nazarene.”


John Lightfoot’s Bible Commentary - “Matthew may be understood concerning the outward, humble, and mean condition of our Saviour. And that by the word, Nazarene, he hints his separation and estrangement from other men, as a despicable person, and unworthy of the society of men.”


“Therefore, by the signification of an angel, he is sent away into Galilee, a very contemptible country, and into the city Nazareth, a place of no account: whence, from this very place, and the name of it, you may observe that fulfilled to a tittle which is so often declared by the prophets, that the Messias should be Nazor, a stranger, or separate from men, as if he were a very vile person, and not worthy of their company.”


B. W. Johnson’s Bible Commentary - “That it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophets. Not by one prophet, but the summing up of a number of prophecies. No prophet had declared in express terms that he should be called a Nazarene. They, however, did apply to Christ the term Nezer, from which Nazareth is derived… the meanness and contempt in which Nazareth was held was itself a prophecy of one who "was despised and rejected." 


Jamieson, Faussett and Brown - “The little town of Nazareth, mentioned neither in the Old Testament nor in JOSEPHUS, was probably so called from its insignificance: a weak twig in contrast to a stately tree; and a special contempt seemed to rest upon it--"Can any good thing come out of Nazareth?" (John 1:46) --over and above the general contempt in which all Galilee was held, from the number of Gentiles that settled in the upper territories of it, and, in the estimation of the Jews, debased it. Thus, in the providential arrangement by which our Lord was brought up at the insignificant and opprobrious town called Nazareth, there was involved, first, a local humiliation; next, an allusion to Isaiah's prediction of His lowly, twig-like upspringing from the branchless, dried-up stump of Jesse; and yet further, a standing memorial of that humiliation which "the prophets," in a number of the most striking predictions, had attached to the Messiah.”


McGarvey and Pendleton Bible Commentary - “That he should be called a Nazarene. The Hebrew word "netzer" means "branch" or "sprout". It is used figuratively for that which is lowly or despised  (Isaiah 17:9; Ezekiel 15:1-6; Malachi 4:1). Now, Nazareth, if derived from "netzer", answered to its name, and was a despised place  (John 1:45-46),  and Jesus, though in truth a Bethlehemite, bore the name Nazarene because it fitly expressed the contempt of those who despised and rejected him.”



The King James Bible is right, as always, and this Bible Mocker is wrong, as they always are.

Edited by brandplucked
some objected to parts of the article.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, MountainChristian said:

With your infallible Bible could you please tell me who these prophets were and list chapters and verses so I can mark the references?

Could you clarify that a bit?  At first glance, the bolded words above give the impression that you may not believe in an infallible Bible.  Is that your view or am I misinterpreting that?  Please clarify.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, No Nicolaitans said:

It says that it was "spoken" by the prophets; it doesn't say that it was "written" by the prophets. Just because it isn't recorded (written) in scripture, that doesn't mean it didn't happen...the Bible says it was spoken...not written...

Amen! Thank you No Nicolaitans! "spoken," and "written," have two entirely different meanings.  

All one has to do is look at every word, look at the context, check out who said what to whom, why it was said (even Satan uses passages in the scripture Matthew 4:1-11), the custom involved (if any), and if it is a prophecy or not. There are not any mistakes in the Authoized Version, the King James Version of 1611 (any edition).



Edited by Alan

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

@brandplucked - please edit your post to remove references to "Bible mocker."  MountainChristian was not mocking the KJB - he was asking a question.  Granted, mayhap the first part of his statement didn't need to be worded in that way, but an immediate assumption that he was mocking was wrong as well. Mountain is a member of this forum and has never given any indication that he does not accept the authority of the KJB. I would assume, since you wrote your answer in the format that you did, that you placed this on a separate site. Integrity would dictate that you change the accusation there. I thank you for your answer to the question, which was quite detailed. But, again, please edit the attack on his character out of your answer. Thank you.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi guys. I understand your points and your clarification was needed, because the way he phrased the question "in your inerrant Bible" it certainly sounded like so many other bible agnostics I hear from.

And, Yes, I did post the response on Facebook.

In any event, I will be happy to edit out the parts you object to. I hope that the brother who asked the question is really a King James Bible believer and not a modern perversion promoter.

God bless.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm a KJV man. That is all I own. I have the 1611 and King James Authorized Version on my computer. I read the KJAV and the 1611, many times side by side. I carry KJAV to church and other places. 

I can not write about the modern English translations because I do not own any. I have not studied the modern English translations. How can I approve or condemn a translation not knowing what is in the translation.


Mat 21:20 And when the Disciples saw it, they marueiled, saying, How soone is the figge tree withered away?

Mat 21:20 And when the disciples saw it, they marvelled, saying, How soon is the fig tree withered away!

Mat 5:47 And if yee salute your brethren only, what do you more then others? Doe not euen the Publicanes so?

Mat 5:47 And if ye salute your brethren only, what do ye more than others? do not even the publicans so?

Change would create an error in a perfect translation. you to ye was made at a latter printing in the 1600s. then to than was made in 1884. Doe to do, Publicanes to publicans was made in 1769. Which one of those is infallible? 1611? 1769? 1884? Each change proves an error was present.

If you download e-Sword's, the KJV and the 1611 you can read them side by side and see all the changes for yourself.

Has God ever changed? No. Has the KJV ever changed? Yes, many times. God never changes, God's word never changes, if God had translated the KJV it would have never changed. But men under the influence of the Holy Ghost translated the KJV, that's why there has been changes. The Holy Ghost makes no mistakes, so who does that leave? The men doing the translation.

If you want to see what men can do to the Word, look at the cross. Mankind's sin caused God the Father to forsake (Eli, Eli, lama sabachthani?) God the Son (Who is the Word). Think how evil sin is to do that to the Trinity. My sin done that to God the Father and God the Son.


The Holy Ghost uses the KJVs and modern translations to save lost sinners. The Holy Ghost is part of the Trinity, He makes no mistakes, He never changes, He is infallible.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

But, again, please edit the attack on his character out of your answer. Thank you.


9 hours ago, Jim_Alaska said:

In any editing of this reply I would request that you also remove the uncalled for accusation of a brother being "given over to a reprobate mind." This is totally uncalled for.


4 hours ago, HappyChristian said:

Thank you for editing your post. I hope that you edit the post on Facebook as well

Just adding my opinion here.   Unless profanity has been used, I'm not a big fan of editing posts to remove things to which people have taken offense.  I much prefer clarification, retraction and apology and leaving the original posts the way they were.   Returning to past posts to remove content disrupts continuity and makes it difficult for others to follow.  Also, I believe it is a good example to others to leave the original content and apologize/clarify/retract in a later post.  This allows others to see how appropriate and courteous resolution is to be conducted.

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/21/2017 at 11:05 AM, HappyChristian said:

@brandplucked - please edit your post to remove references to "Bible mocker."  MountainChristian was not mocking the KJB - he was asking a question.  Granted, mayhap the first part of his statement didn't need to be worded in that way, but an immediate assumption that he was mocking was wrong as well. Mountain is a member of this forum and has never given any indication that he does not accept the authority of the KJB. I would assume, since you wrote your answer in the format that you did, that you placed this on a separate site. Integrity would dictate that you change the accusation there. I thank you for your answer to the question, which was quite detailed. But, again, please edit the attack on his character out of your answer. Thank you.

I do apologize for the wording of my question my intent was to seek more knowledge. Seek and ye shall find. We have a Jewish Center and I want the Jews to get saved and escape with us in the rapture, some of them have more knowledge and ask questions to stump a man witnessing. Jews for Judaism gives them the questions. The Holy Ghost still loves them and wants them to get saved. I do hope the lost ones can live through the tribulation and see Jesus return. 

I think NN is the closest to scripture, he adds nothing and takes nothing away from what Matthew said.  

However any saved person has to love the teaching on the Branch, and I plan to read more on that subject. 

Share this post

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

  • Who's Online   1 Member, 0 Anonymous, 38 Guests (See full list)