What do you think?
Rate this book
Answers To Your Bible Version Questions
Did God preserve His words?
Or does my Bible contain errors?
If you believe God preserved His words, where can you find them?
History shows that there are two streams of Bible texts, and they are not the same. Obviously, both of them cannot be correct.
Respected linguist David Daniels proves beyond a doubt how we can know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. He answers many of the difficult questions the so-called "experts" throw against the King James.
Whether you want to defend the King James Bible or learn which Bible you can trust, you will find the answers here.
Or does my Bible contain errors?
If you believe God preserved His words, where can you find them?
History shows that there are two streams of Bible texts, and they are not the same. Obviously, both of them cannot be correct.
Respected linguist David Daniels proves beyond a doubt how we can know the King James Bible is God's preserved words in English. He answers many of the difficult questions the so-called "experts" throw against the King James.
Whether you want to defend the King James Bible or learn which Bible you can trust, you will find the answers here.
230 pages, Kindle Edition
First published March 1, 2003
19 people are currently reading
18 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews
May 13, 2023
‘Irrational’ is probably the kindest way of describing this book, which is attempting to prove that the seventeenth century King James Version of the bible is God’s favoured translation of the bible into English.
The argument begins by telling us that from the earliest days of Christianity there was a real bible and a ‘fake (Alexandrian) Bible’, prepared by the Devil, and which is known as the Septuagint (Chp 1). Later we hear that the Septuagint was faked after the New Testament (apparently by third century Origen), and that’s why the New Testament seems to quote it in places (Chp 2).
Really? Where is the evidence for that astonishing claim, which if it were true it would disprove the entirety of Academic Biblical Scholarship. In point of fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. Some fragments from ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with Septuagint texts. That shows that the Septuagint cannot have been written after the New Testament.
Furthermore, we can see evidence of a pre-existing Septuagint in the New Testament itself. The author struggles to explain why Matthew’s gospel (1.23) quotes Isaiah 7.14 as saying that a ‘virgin will conceive,’ when the Hebrew text has the word for ‘young woman’ (almah). The answer is simple. The Septuagint uses the word ‘virgin’ and Matthew is quoting the Septuagint (!). But the author has nailed his colours to the mast, that recognising the validity of the Septuagint would acknowledge the validity of Catholic claims (Chp 2), and that is something that his Protestantism will not allow. So regardless of what evidence suggests, Matthew simply cannot be quoting the Septuagint… Thus contorted reasoning abounds as Confirmation Bias bites.
Then we are told that there were two Latin bibles, an Old Latin bible from around 120, and then a ‘Counterfeit vulgate’ prepared by Devil inspired Catholics in around the year 300. Apparently “the Roman Catholic armies hunted down and martyred those who were caught possessing the true Latin Vulgate.’ (Chp 1). Really? Where is the evidence for that astonishing claim? In point of fact we can see evidence that the old Latin versions of the bible continued to be copied in monasteries and used for centuries by Catholics after the new Latin version was produced.
More significantly the author’s point does not make rational sense. The oldest Latin translations of the bible followed the Septuagint. Jerome’s fourth century Vulgate translation was controversial in its day, because he was trying to translate it closer to the Hebrew texts. If the Septuagint is a demonic fake bible, which is being followed by the older first Latin version(s), how can it be preferable to the second Latin bible of Jerome’s vulgate? Unless anti-Catholic prejudice necessitates such a conclusion.
Later in the book we hear that Roman Catholics ‘perverted’ the ending of Mark’s Gospel by substituting a shorter ending. If that were so, then we would expect to find that shorter ending in the Catholics’ so called ‘counterfeit vulgate,’ which was their official bible for 1000 years. But its not there. So clearly it is irrational and contrary to evidence to blame Catholics for faking the shorter ending of Marks Gospel.
When it comes to positively justifying the King James Version (KJV), we get similarly odd arguments and contorted rationalisations. The author refuses to accept that there can be any errors in the KJV as he believes that God has endorsed it. But what about the famous text at 1 John 5,7, known as the Johannine Comma. This is a text that biblical scholars now recognise was accidentally copied into ancient manuscripts in the fourth century. The text was included in bibles for centuries, until the error was recognised. So it appears in the KJV. To defend the KJV the author tries to quote evidence to prove the authenticity of the Johannine Comma. In doing so, he flies in the face of the entirety of serious academic biblical scholarship. The author cites his scholarly credentials a couple of times to give his readers confidence. But is it rational for a reader to believe the author, when his views are so divergent from the consensus of biblical scholars, and especially when his case is based on just a few paragraphs without any serious quoting and contextualising of the evidence he appeals to ?
Overall this is a disappointingly irrational repetition of long disproved Reformation polemics and anti-Catholic prejudice. As its thesis is contrary to evidence and rational argument, the book is essentially just a repetition of a previously discredited conspiracy theory.
The argument begins by telling us that from the earliest days of Christianity there was a real bible and a ‘fake (Alexandrian) Bible’, prepared by the Devil, and which is known as the Septuagint (Chp 1). Later we hear that the Septuagint was faked after the New Testament (apparently by third century Origen), and that’s why the New Testament seems to quote it in places (Chp 2).
Really? Where is the evidence for that astonishing claim, which if it were true it would disprove the entirety of Academic Biblical Scholarship. In point of fact the evidence points in the opposite direction. Some fragments from ancient manuscripts such as the Dead Sea Scrolls agree with Septuagint texts. That shows that the Septuagint cannot have been written after the New Testament.
Furthermore, we can see evidence of a pre-existing Septuagint in the New Testament itself. The author struggles to explain why Matthew’s gospel (1.23) quotes Isaiah 7.14 as saying that a ‘virgin will conceive,’ when the Hebrew text has the word for ‘young woman’ (almah). The answer is simple. The Septuagint uses the word ‘virgin’ and Matthew is quoting the Septuagint (!). But the author has nailed his colours to the mast, that recognising the validity of the Septuagint would acknowledge the validity of Catholic claims (Chp 2), and that is something that his Protestantism will not allow. So regardless of what evidence suggests, Matthew simply cannot be quoting the Septuagint… Thus contorted reasoning abounds as Confirmation Bias bites.
Then we are told that there were two Latin bibles, an Old Latin bible from around 120, and then a ‘Counterfeit vulgate’ prepared by Devil inspired Catholics in around the year 300. Apparently “the Roman Catholic armies hunted down and martyred those who were caught possessing the true Latin Vulgate.’ (Chp 1). Really? Where is the evidence for that astonishing claim? In point of fact we can see evidence that the old Latin versions of the bible continued to be copied in monasteries and used for centuries by Catholics after the new Latin version was produced.
More significantly the author’s point does not make rational sense. The oldest Latin translations of the bible followed the Septuagint. Jerome’s fourth century Vulgate translation was controversial in its day, because he was trying to translate it closer to the Hebrew texts. If the Septuagint is a demonic fake bible, which is being followed by the older first Latin version(s), how can it be preferable to the second Latin bible of Jerome’s vulgate? Unless anti-Catholic prejudice necessitates such a conclusion.
Later in the book we hear that Roman Catholics ‘perverted’ the ending of Mark’s Gospel by substituting a shorter ending. If that were so, then we would expect to find that shorter ending in the Catholics’ so called ‘counterfeit vulgate,’ which was their official bible for 1000 years. But its not there. So clearly it is irrational and contrary to evidence to blame Catholics for faking the shorter ending of Marks Gospel.
When it comes to positively justifying the King James Version (KJV), we get similarly odd arguments and contorted rationalisations. The author refuses to accept that there can be any errors in the KJV as he believes that God has endorsed it. But what about the famous text at 1 John 5,7, known as the Johannine Comma. This is a text that biblical scholars now recognise was accidentally copied into ancient manuscripts in the fourth century. The text was included in bibles for centuries, until the error was recognised. So it appears in the KJV. To defend the KJV the author tries to quote evidence to prove the authenticity of the Johannine Comma. In doing so, he flies in the face of the entirety of serious academic biblical scholarship. The author cites his scholarly credentials a couple of times to give his readers confidence. But is it rational for a reader to believe the author, when his views are so divergent from the consensus of biblical scholars, and especially when his case is based on just a few paragraphs without any serious quoting and contextualising of the evidence he appeals to ?
Overall this is a disappointingly irrational repetition of long disproved Reformation polemics and anti-Catholic prejudice. As its thesis is contrary to evidence and rational argument, the book is essentially just a repetition of a previously discredited conspiracy theory.
December 13, 2020
I have preferred the King James Version of the Bible for a very long time and, due to a fine Bible college education and lots of reading on the topic, believe it to still be a superior translation. I had hoped Mr. Daniels' book would add to my store of knowledge. It did not. Aside from charging the Catholic Church with a list of conspiratorial misdeeds (without specific documentation), and claiming on pages 47-54 that the Septuagint (a Greek translation of the Old Testament) was written AFTER the New Testament (a notion I have absolutely never read anywhere else), the final straw that made me drop the book was his instruction on pages 31-32 and elsewhere to correct the Greek text using the KJV! In short, if you are looking for a book to bolster both your faith in the Bible and why so many people rely on the King James translation, may I suggest either "The King James Version Defended" by Edward F. Hills, or "Which Bible?" edited by David Otis Fuller. Your time and money will be much better spent with these.
Displaying 1 - 2 of 2 reviews