Will Kinney on the Dividing Line (With Continued Discussion of Theology)

Textual Support for Revelation 15:3 and the King James Only Controversy

I'll give you some background information, and then we will dive right into it. On page 66 of the original edition, there's a new edition of the King James Only Controversy, but since this was the one that was used in a video that was posted recently.

Page 66, the King James Only Controversy, I am discussing how the Texas Receptus was put together, and specifically Erasmus and the Greek texts Stephanus and Beza, and so on and so forth. And under the topic, a closer look at the Texas Receptus, one brief paragraph on page 66 reads as follows, two more interesting problems in the TR and Revelation should be briefly noted.

The first is the addition of the phrase, him that liveth forever and ever, Revelation 5 .14. This edition is found in only three suspect Greek manuscripts, but is absent from Reikland's manuscript. In Revelation 15 .3, King of Saints, which should be either King of the Ages, NIV, or King of the Nations, NASB, the TR's reading again fails to have Greek manuscript support.

Now, at this point, I have a footnote, footnote number 47, or in this case, end note, because in the original edition, the notes are at the end of the chapters. And end note number 47 says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the TR reading.

Now, why would I say that the TR reading, that that is the Texas Receptus, fails to have Greek manuscript support, and then provide a footnote that says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only ones to support the TR reading?

Well, if you were following the end notes as you were reading the book, you can go back and you will see that in footnote number 41, I said the following, as we will note, Haskir 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus' printed text, and is hence nearly worthless as a textual source.

The same is true of Haskir 57. And so, I provided a footnote where I noted that Herman Haskir, in his 30-year compilation of the sources of the Book of Revelation, had listed two manuscripts, two manuscripts in support of the reading King of Saints at Revelation 15 .3.

The problem being that both of those manuscripts come after the printed edition of Erasmus, and hence are handwritten copies of a printed book, and hence are, of course, irrelevant because all they're doing is repeating what's already in the work of Erasmus.

Now, why do I start off with something as obscure as something like this? Well, it is interesting to note that, for example, Herman Haskir spent 30 years of his life collating all of these manuscripts of the Book of Revelation, and he has an extensive work I have at my library, and the numbers he used are not identical to the numbers we use today.

He used a different numbering system, and you have to go to his books, and there's a chart that translates them, and things like that. And so, if you're using modern Bible software, you will see a different set of numbers, but there are ways of figuring out which ones are which, and so on and so forth.

And that's all very interesting, but the reason I raise this is that a few people began making a reference, sending me emails. I think Sam Shamoon was the first one to send me an email with a link to some videos that were being posted on YouTube by Mr. Will Kinney, and so I started listening to them.

I downloaded the first one, converted it to MP3, listened to it while I was driving up to Riding Mingus Mountain on Saturday, and then I, in looking for information about who had been the host of the program and stuff, because it was, there was some, well, let's just say it's like a lot of King James Only material, rather nasty.

You know, I'm a deceiver, and a liar, and I engage in Bible blunders, and I'm a used car salesman, and all the rest of this stuff, you know, the standard King James Only, in-your-face type stuff. So, I want to know, you know, if I'm going to talk about this stuff, I want to have the background, I want to know who's who, and so on and so forth.

And so, I went on YouTube, and I found that there were a couple other videos that I hadn't.

Seen.

And so, I started listening to one. It was initially about Colossians 2 .9, and I'll get around to that eventually. But there were two things. It was about half an hour long, and on both these videos, Mr. Kenyon is just simply reading articles he's posted on the internet.

And then there's some interchange with the host of the program. And Monday morning, as I wrote, I listened to this second video. And, as I was listening, I was intrigued by what I heard, at least until I got back and then read what I just read from my book.

I don't carry my books on the bike with me. That would be an unnecessary aerodynamic drag, to be certain. So, I want to play for you what was said specifically about this text, and let you judge for yourself.

And then, Mr. Kenyon actually has called in, so we will see what he has to say as well. Let's listen to what Mr. Kenyon had to say about Revelation 15 .3 and my comments in the King James Only Controversy.

This one I thought was hilarious. This one is a good one. In Revelation 15 .3, it says, Thou King of Saints. One of the silliest comments James makes is his criticism of the King James Bible reading.

Now, please note, this is what I've said is silly. That's the assertion that's being made.

On page 66, he says that the King of Saints is wrong when he says it does not have Greek.

Manuscripts.

And it should be either. The King of the Nations. Again, there's two different readings. Out of two of the three, reliable to read. The NIV, which reads one way. And the New King James, which still reads King of Saints, which he's now criticizing.

Now, let me just mention here, Mr. Kenyon always brings this up. I simply said in my book, that given the differences in translational methodology, and I had an extensive discussion of the difference between formal equivalency, functional equivalency, et cetera, et cetera.

Recognizing that there are differences in the approaches of each of these, that they are reliable, consistent translations of the underlying Greek text. I had an entire discussion of the fact that the New King James is based upon a completely.

Different Greek text.

Mr. Kenyon always ignores that. He criticizes me. Whoa, this is the New King James, King James, you disagree.

Duh.

I know that. Anyone who reads my book knows that I know that. All I said was the New King James is a reliable and excellent translation of its underlying Greek text. Nothing more than that. But it becomes a constant criticism by Mr. Kenyon.

We'll be asking him why he cannot see the distinction that I myself made since he says he's read my book four or five times.

You see what a phony he is? These are reliable versions. And then he criticizes the reading found in one.

See, and you say, why would you? Because he calls me a phony and a hypocrite and a liar, all based on his not understanding the distinctions I myself make in the book. And anyone who's read the book knows that I made those distinctions.

So when you ignore the distinctions I myself make, when I spend paragraphs doing that, and then say I'm a phony, well, I think you need to be able to answer for those things.

One of them, and the two other reliable versions, both have different readings in them. So I say James is such a joker, isn't he?

No, he's terrible.

In his book, he recommends three different versions as being reliable and trustworthy, New American Standard, NIV, and the New King James. Yet all three of these, quote, reliable versions differ from each other.

The phoniest reading of the King James book and the book of Revelation that he discusses in his book is also found in the New King James, which he recommends.

Of course. Why? Because the New King James is a translation of what? The very same Greek text. I know that. Everyone who read my book knows that. There is absolutely no foundation for criticism at this point, if you would just allow what I said to stand.

Then he now gives us two different versions with two different readings, and then lies when he says the King James Bible reading fails to have Greek manuscript support.

Now, did you catch that? Now, did you catch that? I lied when I said there's no Greek manuscript support. Now, listen. You've not heard Mr. Kinney note the footnote. It's right there, page 66, footnote number 47.

Now, if you're going to say someone's lying, and yet they've got a footnote at the very end of what you quoted that specifically addresses the textual issue, that's one of the main questions we're going to have for Mr. Kinney today.

That's Mormon, M-O-O-R-M-A-N, Jack Mormon. He recently debated James White in England. Majority text on page 110, he gives the evidence for the reading found in the King James Bible, as well as that of, it's also found in Tyndale, Coverdale, Great Bible, Matthew's Bible, Bishops, Geneva Bible, Living Oracles, Young's Webster's, Luther's Bible.

Now, I need to stop in the midst of this. This is something Mr. Kinney does all the time. He will spend minutes of these giving these long lists, and what are they? They're all translations of the TR.

What does that prove? From a textual perspective, from a scholarly perspective, absolutely, positively, nothing. They're based upon a Byzantine textual platform. Congratulations. What does that mean? It means there's a difference between the modern critical text and the Byzantine text, but listing all of these translations as if it's relevant, total waste of time to anyone who's familiar with the field, but it's something that you will hear over and over again.

The Russian Synodal Bible, Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the Reina Valera, 1995. It's found in the New King James. It's in the French Osterwald, 1996, Portuguese de Almeida and Biblia Sagrada. It's also in the modern Greek Bible that's out there.

It's the same reading that's found in the King James Bible. Anyway, the Greek manuscripts of 296, 2049, and 2066 contain this reading.

Now, let's stop right there. He's reading from Jack Mormon, and he is now given three manuscripts that have this reading. 269 and 2049. Now, 269 and 2049 are Gregory numbers. If you will check the charts published by Hoskier himself, those are the very two manuscripts noted in footnote number 47 on page 66 of the King James Only Controversy, and both of them are handwritten copies of the TR, and hence are utterly irrelevant.

I did not mention 2066.

Why?

Look up 2066. Here is Kurt Allen's Liste der Greik, Handschriften des Neues Testament. This is actually an older one. Well, and it's still useful, but it's older. They keep updating it. 2066. Let me see here.

And what is the date? This is on page 165 of my edition. The date of this manuscript? We know the exact year because it's dated.

1574.

When did Erasmus first put out the first edition of what becomes the TR? 1516. All five editions of Erasmus are before this, and the 1550 Stephanus text as well, all before this. That means that Jack Mormon's list gives us three manuscripts that were all handwritten after the publication of Erasmus' work.

Now, I took the time, and in fact I have on the screen in front of me Erasmus' 1522 edition, and it has King of Saints. So, the question for Mr. Kinney will be a simple one. Show us a single Greek manuscript that predates the TR, that predates Erasmus' work, that reads that way, and then you'll have a basis for calling me a liar.

Otherwise, you have no basis for the comments that have been made here at all.

And it is also the reading found in the Greek text of Stephanus, Biza, Elzevir, and the Trinity Bible Society's Scrivener text.

Now, why even mention that? Of course it is. They're all based on Erasmus. And Scrivener, what is Scrivener's Bible Society text? It is a fake Greek text. He went back to the King James translators, he compared the five editions of Erasmus with Stephanus, with Biza, found out which readings the King James translators chose, and created a Greek text based upon what they chose.

It is textually irrelevant, because it's based upon an English translation. And there is not a single Greek manuscript on the planet that reads like the Trinitarian Bible Society TR.

Not one. Nowhere. Doesn't exist.

So, why raise these questions? This is not even disputable stuff, but it's also not, in the slightest bit, relevant to anything that I said in my book, or proving that I am a liar, or silly, or anything else.

So to say that this reading fails to have Greek manuscript support, if it's an outright lie, he should have done his homework before writing this ridiculous book that he has with all this misinformation in it.

So, I've written a ridiculous book with all this misinformation in it, and remember, it's Mr. Kinney who didn't read the footnote. It's Mr. Kinney that didn't look at what was in the footnote. It was Mr. Kinney who didn't do the translation from the Hofskir numbers to the Gregory numbers.

I did! I did!

And so, he concluded with these words.

None of the revisions agree with the previous versions. And yet Mr. White has the temerity to recommend three different Bible versions, none of which agrees with the others. And then he lies to us about the King James Bible reading not having any Greek support.

And I ask, would you trust this man to sell you a used car?

Amen.

You know, to see, you know, once you begin to examine where he's coming from and how he set up his own mind as his final authority, and he gives lots of just total misinformation in his book. And, you know, the man has no inspired inerrant Bible at all to give to anybody.

And like I said, you know, he just gives you reliable versions that differ from one another by thousands of words and hundreds of different meanings. And that's what he has to give you. No wonder everybody's confused, you know, in that people would actually think this man knows what he's talking about.

Well, that's the, um, that's his gift.

That's his gift. There, there you go. Now you have the background on this issue of Revelation chapter 15, verse 3. And so I am very thankful to say that Mr. Kinney has called the dividing line today. Hello, Mr. Kinney, how are you?

I'm doing super, thank you.

Good. Well, we've got some questions for you. I think you just heard all of that.

Wait a minute, sir, if I could, please.

Sure.

You know, I would be happy to address every single point you brought up there and why I specifically called you a liar. I'd love to do that.

Okay.

First question, though, you never answer this. Do you use the inerrant word of God?

Of course I do.

What are you referring to when you say that?

Uh, what God gave us when he inspired the Bible.

The originals only?

Um, that's what's inspired, yes, God's writings, yes.

But you said, I used a present tense verb, the Bible is.

Yeah, God, I, I, I, yeah, I believe God has preserved his word for us, yeah.

Do we have the original, sir?

No, we do not, of course not.

So then what are you referring to when you say the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

Well, for a man who says he's read my book four or five times, it's shocking to me that you wouldn't know what I mean. I explained it.

You're dancing around the issue, you're not answering the question.

Mr. Kinney, Mr. Kinney, um, everyone on the audience right now has, knows that I have refuted your allegations and that you have acted in a very boorish manner. And so if you'd like to have a conversation, we can do that, but most of the people, most of the people in the audience likewise knows that I have repeatedly, in the course of my ministry, explained the mechanism by which God has preserved his word, that he has not done so in a English language that did not exist when the Bible was written, and that he has done so by transmitting those manuscripts all across the known world so that no editing and no changing of doctrine or belief could possibly take place.

And if those same people are also aware of the fact that I have contrasted that methodology with the methodology that the Muslims would like to have used and that you would like God to use, and that is the concept of a edited, controlled transmission of a singular text.

Okay, so this is why I was reluctant to call in, because you control the program and you just go on. I know what you believe. What I asked you was, do you believe the Bible is God? You said yes.

Yes, I do.

Then I ask you, where is this Bible?

And I've already explained to you, and I've...

You did not answer the question.

No, sir, you just won't accept the answer to the question. You just simply will not allow for factual information, sir.

Words have meaning.

Yes, sir, they do. They do have meaning. And that's why I'd like to ask you the question now, since everyone knows I have answered your question. Why did you ignore, sir, why did you ignore footnote number 47 on page 66?

I'd be glad to get to that.

Please answer the question.

I want to point out the fact that you are not answering the question.

And I will point out the fact that you seem incapable of accepting the answer to your question, and that almost everybody in my audience knows what the answer to that question is, and they know I have explained it in detail for audiences all around the world.

Your unwillingness to accept those facts has nothing to do with the validity of those facts, Mr. Kinney.

Okay, will you stop a minute, please? Let me explain something. You use a present tense verb. The Bible is the inerrant Word of God. I find this Bible that is the inerrant Word of God. You have nothing to give me.

I most certainly do, sir, just because you cannot understand how God's truth... Sir, Mr. Kinney, just because you demand an English translation, which one of the King James's, sir, is your inspired inerrant translation?

I'm asking you...

No, no, no, you answer me now, sir. You're the one who's called me a liar falsely.

Answer the question.

Which one, Mr. Kinney, which one is the inspired inerrant Word of God? Is it the Cambridge edition?

You're answering right now. You said the Bible is the inerrant Word of God.

Is it the Cambridge edition, or is it the Oxford edition? Is it the 1611? Is it the 1769 Blaney revision? Which one is it, sir? Can you tell us?

I'm answering the question.

I've answered your question, sir. You just simply won't accept it. Now you answer my question. Which one? You say you've got one. Mr. Kinney, Mr. Kinney, answer the question. Answer the question, sir.

You can't do it, and you know you can't do it. Which one is it?

You're not answering my question. Why go on?

Answer the question, sir. Okay, how about answering any question? Can you answer any of the questions I've asked you?

Go ahead.

Why did I call you a liar, okay?

Okay, let's hear it.

Let's take a look at that. What does your footnote say?

No, that's not what the footnote says, sir.

Wait a minute.

Yeah, it says, again, we find 57 and 141 being the only...

Wait a minute, hold it, will you?

I'm reading the book for you.

I'm reading the book. You ask me, all right? Let me finish. The TR is reading. Manucript.

Yes, it is.

Deport.

Yes, sir.

On your footnote, do you say one being the only ones to support...

Every person in this audience who is rational has already heard me explain that in footnote...

Because I don't buy your...

Sir, listen to me. Sir, listen to me. Listen to me. You have no idea what you're talking about. You don't read Greek. You've never read Haskia. Sir, you couldn't use Haskia if your life depended on it, sir.

You just got done telling me...

Listen to what it says. As we will note...

Listen, listen.

As we will note, Haskia 141 is almost certainly a copy of Erasmus' printed text.

Sir, I heard that whole thing. I know what you said.

Okay then, sir, can you explain to me... Here's a simple way to prove I'm a liar. Name a single Greek manuscript before Erasmus' 1516 edition that reads King of Saints.

I'm not concerned about that.

No, of course you're not concerned about that because that's the only way you can be truthful.

Wait a minute.

Let me talk. I'm looking at your book, this statement that you made in your book that I'm looking at.

Yep.

Each manuscript supports.

That's right.

Is that a true statement?

It is.

Then why do you contradict yourself and say these other two ones support the TR reading?

Sir, I am sorry that you are incapable of rational thought. But everyone who can engage in rational thought knows that a handwritten copy of a printed book is not manuscript support, sir. What part of these were handwritten manuscripts.

That were copies of Erasmus' printed work that came afterwards can you not understand, sir? When Erasmus wrote the book, sir, was there a single Greek manuscript that read the way the King James Version reads?

Name one, sir. If you can't, then admit that you were wrong.

James, I'm going by what is written.

No, sir. You are going by your abject incapacity to understand simple human reasoning. Okay, Mr. Kinney, listen to me. Mr. Kinney, if I hand wrote a copy of one of your internet articles and changed something in it, does that mean anything?

Of course not. And so we're talking about handwritten copies of a printed text. Everybody who reads what I said knows that the only Greek manuscript support that would be relevant to a printed text is that which exists at the time of the making of the printed text, not something that comes later.

Are you telling me that you could write, all you would have to have done is write a Greek manuscript of Revelation 15 today and that would prove me a liar because you wrote it after I wrote the book and after the Greek text was printed?

Seriously, sir?

Calm down a minute. Calm down. I'm looking at what you wrote in your book, okay?

And you don't seem to understand it.

I understand your convoluted explanation.

Oh, convoluted explanation. So a handwritten manuscript of a printed edition.

Just let me get the point across.

Your point is irrational, Mr. Kinney, and everyone can see that.

What you wrote in your book, in your book, was that a true statement?

Yes, sir. That's the third time that I've said that it's a true statement.

You can't predict yourself in your book before you say that...

Folks, here you go. Here is, this is the kind of thinking that produces King James Only-ism. This is the kind of thinking, folks, here is a man who cannot listen to rational thought and so let's lay that one aside because that one has been, that one has been proven beyond all question.

Here is a man who is going to say, you can't predict yourself because you mentioned manuscripts that were written after the T .R. And there you go. And you don't understand it. So let me ask you another question.

You said in your video that in Colossians 2 .9, you said that there were two other places where the term Godhead appears in the King James Version of the Bible and both those places are translations of a word that is theos, right?

No, it doesn't, sir. It is theos. Do you understand the difference between epsilon... Mr. Kinney. Mr. Kinney. Mr. Kinney. Hello, Mr. Kinney. Mr. Kinney. Do you understand the difference between an epsilon and an epsilon iota?

And so if a word is theos and another word is theos, do you think they're the same word?

No.

Okay, so the root of the other two forms that the King James translates Godhead is theos, theotae specifically in theos. They're not theos. Were you right or were you wrong in your statement in the video?

You said they were based on theos. Are you saying that theos and theos are the same words? I do, sir, and they are in completely different words. No, sir, they are not. No, sir, they are not. You are just simply wrong.

Name one. Name one. Name one. Name one. Name one.

Sayer.

Sayer does not say they are synonyms, sir.

I got the reference, I believe.

Okay. All right, Mr. Kinney, I really appreciate you calling in because I do not believe anyone has ever demonstrated for us the fact that King James only advocates when faced with just factual evidence.

That is...

Factual evidence?

Yes, factual evidence that they cannot possibly begin to conceive of accurately handling it. I will say, Mr. Kinney, the form of King James onlyism you represent is thoroughly cultic. There's no question about it.

And in fact, let me mention one other thing. Do you think that Godhead means trinity?

Yes, I do. That's how the dictionaries define it.

So the dictionaries define theatetos, theos, and theos.

No, dictionaries. You know, English dictionaries, the English words...

Why would the English dictionaries be relevant to the meaning of the...

Because, God, the word is in English.

Oh, okay, so it's been re-inspired. There you go. All right, thank you, Mr. Kinney. Hey-ho! All right, there we go, folks. I'm sorry, but the level of irrationality on that one just pegged the meters.

Just pegged the meters. Here you've got someone who doesn't even understand the doctrine of the Trinity. This is where it really gets to me. It's one thing for them to lie about me, and I don't think we've ever had a better example of someone who...

You can have the facts right there. Oh, no! You're a liar! Oh, no! This is amazing. I'm talking about having a debate with this guy. I don't think it's possible. A debate requires a rational person. Does this guy drive down the right side of the road or the left side of the road?

I mean, it's just amazing. I now understand. I wasn't saying, is he British? Come on, I like my British friends. That's not... What was it?

Sir Brass said, no, he drives down God's side of the road.

He's quite convinced of that.

What an amazing experience that just was. Wow. So there is Greek manuscript support. It just came about after the TR, that's all. So you could invalidate any one of my statements just simply given his reasoning.

All you'd have to do is rewrite a new manuscript today, and I'm a liar! There you go. I'm sorry, folks. I either have to laugh or cry. But do you see why this kind of thinking is cultic? I mean, I don't know of Mormons that are that twisted in their thinking.

I really don't. It's incredible.

Pierre is a major step up.

Oh, big time. I like talking to Pierre. You know, he still doesn't get it, but I like talking to Pierre. But at least he can reason. And there is just no reasoning going on there at all. That is absolutely amazing.

That gives you a good sense, folks, of the kind of responses that the King James Only controversy has gotten.

And, uh...

Stay far, far, far away, folks. Stay far, far, far away. Because that is absolutely amazing.

Um...

You know, I wanted to ask him if he was familiar with the problems that Erasmus had in producing the text of T .R.

But it doesn't matter to him. You see, that historical stuff doesn't matter. Because we've got the inspired word of God in English. That's our final standard. So all that historical stuff, it doesn't matter.

There's not a single Greek manuscript in the world that reads like the King James Version.

It doesn't matter.

Because the King James is it.

That's the far-right, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, cultic type of King James Onlyism. There you go, folks. Will Kinney. And, uh...

Wow.

I was going to mention, if there had been some rationality there, some of the... He actually said... He pointed out the word Godhead appears three times in the Bible. And that's relevant because of the Trinity.

So you've got numbers of words, how many times the words appear. That becomes relevant. And if Godhead means the Trinity, then you look at Acts, Chapter 17, and that's the Trinity that Paul's talking about?

Really? Honestly?

And we know the Trinity by looking at creation? Really? Honestly? Now, he's just wrong about... He said in his video that the other words are based on theos.

It's not!

If you can't tell the difference between an epsilon and an epsilon-iota diphthong,.

Sorry!

And when you look them up, you'll have to look up different words.

They're not found under the same entry in the lexicons. There's a reason. They're different words, and they have different meanings. Well, anyway. There you go. What an experience that was. I was about to give the phone number.

Instead, we need to get back to our discussions here on other subjects. And I'm going to actually enjoy listening to significantly more rational people than what we just had. All right. Let's get back to...

Since I've spent five minutes extra here, let's get back into the Fernandez-Comas debate, something of a little more value, shall we say. And we are about 41 minutes in. I may let some stuff pass here, and Dr. Fernandez is open to saying, because I want to get into the interaction, because that's where the federal visionism started coming in, and that's really where more of, I think, the real debate took place.

So let's... Oh, you know what? I played that last one on a different computer, and I can start playing this all I want, and it won't make any difference. But it will now. So let's listen to right where we left off with Dr. Fernandez.

Warnings Against Resisting the Spirit and the Case for Irresistible Grace

Seven and eight. It says, do not open your hearts when you hear his voice. Hebrews 10, 26 through 29. Luke 14, 16 through 24.