Change font size


Post a new topicWrite comments Page 1 of 1   [ 3 posts ]
Author Message
 Post subject: The Spirit ITSELF - refuting Kutilek's "most serious error"
PostPosted: Wed Nov 07, 2012 8:23 pm 

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:54 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Colorado
The Spirit ITSELF


“The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.”

Is referring to the third person of the of the blessed Trinity, as “itself” a major error in the King James Bible, which borders on blasphemy?

Doug Kutilek and his fellow bible agnostic friend Rick Joyner are both critics of the King James Bible. Neither one of these men believes that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete and infallible words of God. Both men have written articles that claim the KJB use of "itself" to refer to the Holy Ghost, or Holy Spirit, is borderline blasphemy.

Mr. Kutilek states: “Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun “it” to refer to the Holy Spirit.”

He continues, “I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” He closes his article with these words. “Those who imagine that the KJV. . . is faultless and error-free are compelled to address the matter.”

The purpose of this article is to “address the matter”. I believe Mr. Kutilek’s objections to the use of “it” or “itself” in referring to the Holy Ghost are both hypocritical and ignorant. Hypocritical because there are many versions, including the modern ones, that use “itself” in either the very same verses or in the very same manner; and ignorant because he doesn't know the English language very well.

First, see how the Random House Webster’s College Dictionary of 1999 defines the use of the words “it” and “itself”. The second definition given for “itself” is: “used to represent a PERSON or animal understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context - Who is it? It is John. . . Did you see the baby? Yes, isn’t it cute. . . the cat likes to sun itself in the window.”

The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it”, as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown OR DISREGARDED.” The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but the Spirit is sometimes referred to as masculine and sometimes as neuter, not because He is neuter, but rather because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in that particular context.

The four verses in the KJB that Mr. Kutilek criticizes are: John 1:32, Romans 8:16, Romans 8:26, and I Peter 1:11. We will examine these verses with other translations and then look at some examples in the new versions.

The first verse is John 1:32. “And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending like a dove, and IT abode upon him.” Other Bible versions that agree with the KJB in their use of “it” are the Geneva Bible of 1599 and 1602, Bishops Bible 1568, Daniel Mace's N.T. 1729, Wesley's translation 1755, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, Etheridge Translation 1849, Noyes Translation 1869, Emphatic Diaglott interlinear 1865, Darby 1870, Revised Version of 1881, American Standard Version of 1901, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, the Douay of 1950, Henry Alford’s translation 1868, Young’s 'literal' 1898, the 21st Century KJV of 1994, William’s New Testament 1937, Lamsa's translation of the Syriac 1933, Daniel Webster’s of 1833, the 20th Century New Testament, Weymouth’s translation of 1912, Goodspeed’s American translation 1943, the Amplified Bible 1987 Lockman Foundation - "I have seen the Spirit descending as a dove out of heaven, and IT dwelt on Him", the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, the Revised Standard Version of 1952, the St. Joseph New American Bible 1970, the NRSV of 1989, the Worldwide English New Testament 1998, -"IT stayed on him.", Daniel Wallace's NET version (as of Nov. 7, 2012) - "Then John testified, “I saw the Spirit descending like a dove from heaven, and IT remained on him.", the Mounce Reverse Interlinear N.T. 2011, the 2001 English Standard Version and the 2011 Common English Bible - "I saw the Spirit coming down from heaven like a dove, and IT rested on him."

The second verse is Romans 8:16. “The Spirit ITSELF beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God.” Versions that agree with the KJB are the Bishop’s Bible 1568, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, Webster's translation 1833, Alford's New Testament for English Readers 1868, Darby 1890, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible of 1902, The New Testament from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918, Goodspeed 1943, The New American Bible 1991, the KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Interlinear Greek N.T. by Larry Pierce 1997, the Lawrie Translation 1998, the Third Millenium bible of 1998, the NRSV of 1989, A Conservative Version 2001, the Urim-Thummin Version 2001, The Evidence Bible Ray Comfort 2002, the 21st Century Version 2002, The Faithful New Testament 2005, The Accurate New Testament 2008, The Apostolic Polyglot Bible, the Concordant Version 2006.


The third verse is Romans 8:26. “But the Spirit ITSELF maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.” Again the 21st Century KJV 1994, the Emphatic Diaglott interlinear 1865, Alford’s translation 1868, Noyes Translation 1869, the Bishop’s Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599 and 1602, Daniel Mace's N.T 1729, Wesley's 1755 translation, Coverdale 1535, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, Darby 1890, Webster’s 1833, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, The New Testament Translated from the Sinaitic Manuscript 1918 Henry Anderson, Goodspeed 1943, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, the Third Millenium Bible 1998, A Conservative Version 2001 and The Urim-Thummin Version 2001 all read like the KJB - "the Spirit ITSELF".

The fourth verse is 1 Peter 1:11. “Searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when IT testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.” Versions that agree with the use of “it” here are Alfords New Testament for English Readers 1868, Whiston's Primitive N.T. 1745, Noyes Translation 1869, the Revised Version of 1885, the American Standard Version of 1901 -"the Spirit of Christ which was in them did point unto, when IT testified beforehand", Webster’s translation 1833, the Berkeley Version 1969, Basic Bible in English 1960 - " the Spirit of Christ which was in them was pointing to, when IT gave witness to the pains which Christ would undergo", the New American Bible 1991, Douay-Rheims, the 1989 Revised English Version (Bruce Metzger), the NRSV of 1989, Modern Literal Version of the New Testament, 1999 by G. Allen Walker, the Context Group Version 2007, the Updated Bible Version 2003, the Evidence Bible (Ray Comfort) 2003, the Interlinear Hebrew-Greek Scriptures 2008 and the Revised English Version of 2010.

So we see that many Bible versions which both predate and follow after the King James Holy Bible have used “it” and “itself” to refer to the Spirit of God. This is perfectly acceptable English, and a very accurate translation. Those who criticize the King James Bible for doing this only show their own ignorance of the English language. They also demonstrate their own blind pride that places their own minds and defective understanding above that of numerous other bible translators throughout the centuries who had far more understanding and translational skills than they will ever possess.

The NASB, ESV and NIV have two interesting, parallel verses in the New Testament. Both Matthew 12:45 and Luke 11:26 speak of a “spirit that takes along with IT seven other spirits more wicked than ITSELF”.

Here is a case of a spiritual entity that can see, hear, speak, and has a personality, yet the gender is disregarded in the NASB, ESV and NIV, and is referred to as “itself”. This spirit was not an inanimate object, but rather a spiritual being with a distinct personality.

In Luke 8:29, the same thing occurs in the KJB, NKJV, NIV, ESV and NASB. “For he had commanded the unclean SPIRIT to come out of the man. For oftentimes IT had caught him.” Here again is a spirit that talks, reasons, hears, and knows that Jesus is the Son of God and that torment awaits him. This is clearly a personality and yet all the above mentioned versions refer to him as an “it”. The gender is disregarded, and this is perfectly acceptable English.

Another instance of the Lord Jesus Christ using the little word “IT” to refer to himself is found in the NASB, NIV, ESV and NKJV in Luke 24:39 where He says: “Behold my hands and my feet, that IT is I myself: handle me and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.”

Again in Revelation 12:4, a multitude of Bible versions, including the NKJV, NIV, and the brand new English Standard Version of 2001, all refer to the child Jesus as IT. “And the dragon stood before the woman which was ready to be delivered, for to devour her child as soon as IT was born.”

Likewise in the book of Ruth, even when we know the sex of the child, it can still be referred to as "it". In Ruth chapter 4 we read of the birth of a son to Ruth and Boaz, names Obed. In 4:13 we are told "the LORD gave her conception, and she bare A SON." Yet in verses 16-17 we read: "And Naomi took THE CHILD, and laid IT in her bosom, and became nurse unto IT. And the women her neighbours gave IT a name, saying, There is a SON born to Naomi; and they called HIS name Obed: he is the father of Jesse, the father of David." (See the same thing in the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, Darby's translation, the 1917 Jewish Publication Society Bible translation, the Hebrew Names Bible and the Complete Jewish Bible, to name but a few.)

All of the modern versions use “itself” when referring to both animals and groups of people. The NKJV has the donkey itself in Hosea 8:9, the goat itself in Lev. 16:22; Israel itself in Judges 7:2. Numbers 23:9 speaks of “a people dwelling alone, not reckoning itself among the nations”, and Zechariah 12:12, “the family of the house of David by itself.”

All Bible versions at times speak of Jesus Christ as being a thing or something neuter. In Matthew 1:20, the angel of the Lord says to Joseph: “fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for THAT WHICH is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost.” So read the ESV, RV, ASV, NKJV, RSV. The NIV and Holman have "WHAT is conceived", which is still neuter. However the NASB, NRSV say "THE CHILD WHO has been conceived", which is not in any Greek text, and then the NASB footnotes that it literally is "that which".

Notice the angel does not say “he”, but “that which”: it is neuter both in Greek and in English. In Luke 1:35, the angel says to Mary, “The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee, and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee: therefore also THAT HOLY THING which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.” That holy thing is neuter, yet we all know that Jesus Christ is a person, in fact, God manifest in the flesh. THAT HOLY THING is the reading found in all Greek texts as well as Wycliffe, Tyndale, Bishops' bible, the Geneva Bible, the RV 1885 and ASV of 1901. Here the NASB and ESV now say "THE CHILD to be born", which is not in any Greek text, but once again the NASB footnote informs us that it literally is "that holy thing". Many modern versions are getting worse, not better.

The book of 1 John opens with a reference to Jesus Christ, yet it refers to Him as a thing. “That which was from the beginning, which we have heard, which we have seen with our eyes, which we have looked upon, and our hands have handled, of the Word of life.” Yet Christ is not a thing, but a person. In I John 5:4 we are told: “WHATSOEVER is born of God overcometh the world.” This is a neuter. Are we to assume that everyone who is born of God is a thing? WHATSOEVER is the reading of the Revised Version 1885 and the ASV 1901, while the NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV have WHATEVER IS BORN of God. This is OK since it is still a neuter, but the NIV, ESV now say 'EVERYONE born of God" which, once again, is not found in any Greek text.

Mr. Kutilek’s objections to these four verses in the King James Bible are totally unfounded. I have found that without exception, every person who takes it upon himself to criticize something found within the pages of the King James Bible is himself a Bible Agnostic. Not one of them can or ever will tell you where you can find the complete, inspired and inerrant words of God in Book form in any language on the face of this earth. Why? Because they simply do not believe that such a thing exists nor ever did exist.

They profess to believe selected portions of their multiple choice bible versions, but doubt, question, criticize and would change numerous others found in ALL versions out there. They are Bible Agnostics. God’s ways are not our ways, and His thoughts are not our thoughts. He has revealed Himself to us in His inspired words, and I along with thousands of other Christians believe He has faithfully kept them for us today in the English language of the King James Bible.

All of grace, believing The Book, Will Kinney



Notes from the Internet

Bible Agnostic and Infallibility Denying Bible Critic Doug Kutilek has written an article he calls The Preservation of Scripture. It can be seen here -

http://kjvonly.org/doug/kutilek_preservation.htm

Kutilek, as usual, just gives us more pious sounding mumbo jumbo that doesn't even make sense, so he can justify the FACT that he does not have nor believe in an infallible Bible.

Notice he says: "The consequence is, that, although the various readings found in the existing manuscripts, are numerous, we are able, in every case, to determine the correct reading, so far as is necessary for the establishment of our faith, or the direction of our practice in every important particular. "


Well, Mr. Kutilek, What about the Doctrine of the Infallibility of the Scripture? How is THAT established by your "numerous various readings"? Toss out faith in an inerrant Bible. Not all that important, right?


And here is more BALONEY from Mr. Kutilek when he says: "Or, to summarize Dagg: the miracle of inspiration was operative only in the original writing of Scripture and only the originals are infallible. "

Notice two things about this bible agnostic's remarks. First, if inspiration was limited only to the long lost and never seen by him "originals" then Kutilek and you do not have an inspired Bible. Oh, wait. That IS what most of you believe anyway, isn't it.

Secondly, Notice Kutilek's clever and unfounded use of a present tense verb "ARE" when he LIES to us and says "only the originals ARE infallible". He talks about them as though they exits now and he has them right there in his study as he writes his bloviated opinions. Yet he himself KNOWS that no such thing as the originals exist and therefore ARE NOT.

He would be telling the truth of what he really believes if he had said something like "Once upon a time, long long ago and very far way there WAS the originals. They never did make up a single Bible, but IF they had been preserved, then they would have been our final authority. But, alas, no such thing as the originals exist anymore. They long ago turned to dust and nobody alive today has ever seen a single word of them. So today we Bible critics and bible agnostics are left to our own devices, personal opinions and speculative imagination to try to come up with ballpark approximations of what we think God may or may not have said and not one scholar among us agrees with any other scholar about what the final product should look like. So, be happy; Go with God and hope for the best." Now THAT would have been more in keeping with what men like Doug Kutilek REALLY believe about their ever changing, no text is sure "Bibles".


_________________
"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" - Zechariah 3:2

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Spirit ITSELF - refuting Kutilek's "most serious error"
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 10:13 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 7:56 am
Posts: 3255
Good work Bro. Will, as usual.
I remember years ago when I showed my wife Proverbs 18:22 and told her she was a "thing." But I told her not to worry, she was still more important than my boat or my truck. :D

Kutilek can attack the Holy Bible all he wants, but it will outlive him and it will not pass away.

At some point we pushed man's wisdom aside and fell in love with the KJB; God's pure and preserved words are simple enough to be memorized by children, yet we know the same God who gave us the Bible uses foolish things to confound the wise.

I decided long ago to trust God's Holy Bible even though some parts are not always clear to me. For me this was no big deal, it was simply a reaction to Psalm 12:6-7. But I think this is a big struggle for some people. I would be a fool to think that my thoughts are higher than God's thoughts, but it seems some men (even scholarly types who are much more educated than myself) cannot seem to resolve this internally, and so they resolve to destroy the authority of God's word and replace it with themselves.

It's sad when people get sucked into this. But when you step outside of the whirlwind of all the Greek, Hebrew and associated scholarship-onlyism, the thing men like Kutilek cannot grasp is this; the first key to really understanding God's message in the Bible is to stop trying to correct it and simply believe it.
I think they call it faith.

"For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts." - Isaiah 55:8-9

_________________
The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever." Psalms 12:6-7


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
 Post subject: Re: The Spirit ITSELF - refuting Kutilek's "most serious error"
PostPosted: Thu Nov 08, 2012 2:11 pm 

Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2009 4:54 pm
Posts: 233
Location: Colorado
Amen! Very good thoughts. Thank you.

God bless,

_________________
"Is not this a brand plucked out of the fire?" - Zechariah 3:2

http://brandplucked.webs.com/articles.htm


Top
 Profile E-mail  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post a new topicWrite comments Page 1 of 1   [ 3 posts ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron

9,633,552 Views


Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
610nm Style by Daniel St. Jules of Gamexe.net