“Helpmeet” Is Not a Word

And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
 Genesis 2:18, KJV

Having grown up in a Christian environment, I’ve heard the non-word “helpmeet” tossed around a lot. Not at home so much, but occasionally in church and a lot in popular Christian literature. There are whole books on how to be the best possible helpmeet, or how to prep to become one. “Helpmeet,” loosely translated, means “wife.” Its origins lie in the King James translation of the Bible, where it appears as two separate words. Flipped into a more modern syntactical order, the verse would read “meet help.” “Meet” (also loosely translated) means “fitting” or “suitable,” which is how most other translations of the Bible put it.

This non-word has always bothered me. I didn’t resent the word, exactly, but I always felt as if it didn’t fully capture what God meant. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written in King James English. It wasn’t written in English at all. It was written in Greek and Hebrew. And “helpmeet,” while cute, didn’t seem to encapsulate all that my mother was as a woman, or any of the wonderful women I knew growing up.

Turns out, I was right.

The Hebrew word at the root of the translation “help” or “helper” is ezer (pronounced ay-zer). Ezer is a beefy word that shows up 21 times in the Old Testament. It appears twice in the Bible in reference to women, and both times to Eve (Genesis 2:18 and 20).

The other 19 times are references to military strength. In Isaiah 30:5, Ezekiel 12:14, and Daniel 11:34, the word is used to refer to the armies Israel looked to for help.

The last 16 refer to God Himself.

(I am pulling my research from an excellent book called Lost Women of the Bible by Carolyn Custis James. This Bible scholar has produced several books on the subject of women in the Bible, and has written far more eloquently than I ever could. I am no scholar, so I must depend on those with an education in Greek and Hebrew to do some of the linguistic digging for me. My dear fellow Christian women, if my travel notes don’t answer your questions, please go read her books. Side note over.)

Yes, God calls Himself an ezer. A very strong help. Ezer was not intended, it seems, to evoke images of docility and subservience. Ezer carries with it the connotation of military might, of power, of an unstoppable force. An ezer is a warrior of incredible strength.

And this is the word God used to describe Eve. No, the word is not a mere description: ezer is what she is. Ezer is what all women were created to be.

I know far too many women who think they can only be a “help meet” once they are married. That ezerhood is only hers once that ring is on her finger. Too many women wait, and believe God wants them to wait, to live their lives until they are attached to someone in marriage. There is nothing wrong or degrading about marriage–marriage is pretty fantastic. But if Eve was an ezer, then every woman is born an ezer. As Custis James put it, “Marriage is one major area where the ezer stands with man in battle. It by no means exhausts the possibilities” (Custis James 37).

When God wrote of women for the first time, He called them strong. He gave them the same name He calls Himself when He refers to His own unlimited power. He made woman to be a warrior, the kind of person you’d want to watch your back in a tight spot.

The non-word “helpmeet” doesn’t cut it.

Advertisements

25 comments

  1. alicianewk10 · October 15, 2015

    I need to be taking notes. This is GOOD stuff.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. Teacherlovesbooks · October 15, 2015

    Wow! That word sheds a whole new light on the role of women. Apply that word to the Proverbs 31 woman–now she’s a powerhouse! I hope my husband looks to me “to watch his back”! I can relish that role. 🙂

    Liked by 2 people

  3. Anna · October 15, 2015

    Great devotional! I’ve cringed at the use of “help-meet” for so many years! And I love your use of Jesus’ words, that knowing Him -the Truth- we will be free!
    I confused about how many times the word “ezer” is used. Would you recheck the numbers, please? You write that the word is used 21 times total, then 2x referring to Eve, then 18x as a military term (military strength or armies), then 16x referring to God. That would equal 36x total. Am I misunderstanding something?
    And do you believe that these verses portray women as spiritual warriors or physical ones?
    I will take your advice and look for the book, but I appreciate your response as well.
    Thank you for your thoughtful writing; I look forward to reading your blog! 🙂

    Liked by 1 person

    • E.A. Stephens · October 15, 2015

      Hey, Anna! I just went back and rechecked my math–I could’ve worded things better. Ezer is used 21 times total according to the source I mentioned–2 times for Eve, 3 times for powers Israel sought for aid, and the last 16 are reference to God as a military power. I lumped all but the references to Eve under descriptions of military power in general, including God.
      Physical or spiritual–that’s a good question. Considering God created both Adam and Eve to have dominion over the earth, it would seem that God made Eve and Adam both to be strong enough to handle the task (at least pre-fall). God uses “ezer” as a reference to physical strength when He speaks of Himself and of other military powers, so it seems safe to allow the connotation of physical strength to carry over to Eve as well. Off the top of my head, there’s only one other verse in Scripture that refers to female physical strength, and that’s Proverbs 31:17 which says a wise woman should strengthen her arms.
      I’m not sure if women are called to be physical warriors in the sense of actually going to war, simply because Christians in general aren’t called to go to war. He doesn’t really call men to be physical warriors either (outside of instances in the Old Testament). I cannot think of a time when God says women *shouldn’t* be actual soldiers, but the New Testament makes it clear that Christians’ primary battles–whether they be male or female believers–are in the spiritual realm. Arguably, the spiritual battles are the tougher ones to fight.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. willjkinney · October 15, 2015

    More Dealings with the Bible Correctors

    Genesis 2:18 KJB – “And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET for him.”

    Some Bible correctors, who themselves do not believe that ANY Bible in any language, including “the” Hebrew and “the” Greek (there is no such animal) is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God, have criticized the King James Bible words “an help meet”.

    One such critic ignorantly writes: “Helpmeet,” loosely translated, means “wife.” Its origins lie in the King James translation of the Bible, where it appears as two separate words. Flipped into a more modern syntactical order, the verse would read “meet help.” “Meet” (also loosely translated) means “fitting” or “suitable,” which is how most other translations of the Bible put it.

    This non-word has always bothered me. I didn’t resent the word, exactly, but I always felt as if it didn’t fully capture what God meant. The Bible, after all, wasn’t written in King James English. It wasn’t written in English at all. It was written in Greek and Hebrew. And “helpmeet,” while cute, didn’t seem to encapsulate all that my mother was as a woman, or any of the wonderful women I knew growing up.

    Turns out, I was right.

    The Hebrew word at the root of the translation “help” or “helper” is ezer (pronounced ay-zer). Ezer is a beefy word that shows up 21 times in the Old Testament. It appears twice in the Bible in reference to women, and both times to Eve (Genesis 2:18 and 20).” [End of comments]

    First of all, the Bible critic didn’t even quote the King James Bible correctly. There are two words there – “help” and “meet”, and there are two words in the Hebrew text. One is ezer, as he points out, and it is # 5828 and the other one he missed is “meet”, and it is # 5048.

    Ezer means “help”. He has no problem with that. But then he tells us that he prefers the words “fitting” or “suitable”. Maybe he is the product of American public school education in the 21st century, but if he is open to a chance to learn something, he might try consulting and English dictionary to find out what the word “meet” means. Just a friendly suggestion.

    What he will find is that one of the meanings of the English word “meet” – the adjective, is “suitable, fit, proper” – Oxford English Dictionary.

    Merriam Webster’s Online Dictionary 11th edition
    http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/meet

    adjective
    Definition of MEET
    : precisely adapted to a particular situation, need, or circumstance : very proper

    meet – “fitting, proper” – American Heritage Dictionary

    Wordsmyth English Dictionary

    http://www.wordsmyth.net/?level=3&ent_l=meet&rid=25665

    meet – meet
    part of speech:
    adjective
    definition:
    proper; suitable.

    synonyms:
    appropriate, proper, suitable
    antonyms:
    improper
    similar words:
    applicable, apposite, apropos, apt, comely, felicitous, fit, fitting, good, happy, right, seemly
    related words:
    due, just, likely, valid

    It should be obvious at this point that the expression “an help meet for him” means exactly what our Bible corrector thinks it should mean. Part of his problem is that he doesn’t know his own English language. The other part is that he doesn’t actually believe that ANY Bible is the inerrant words of God, so he has made his own mind and personal preferences his “final authority”, subject to change at any moment.

    “I will make him AN HELP MEET for him.”

    And our Bible critic is also wrong in telling us that the expression “an help meet” has its origins in the King James Bible. Not only does the King James Bible use the expression “an help meet” to describe Eve, the wife of Adam, but so also do the following Bible translations – the Geneva Bible 1587 – “I wil make him AN HELPE MEETE for him.”, the Webster Version 1833, the Lesser Bible 1853, The Jewish Family Bible 1864, The Sharpe Bible 1883, the Revised Version 1885, the ASV 1901, The Ancient Hebrew Bible 1907, the Jewish Publication Society Bible 1917, The Hebrew Publishing Company Bible 1936, The Word of Yah 1993, The Revised Webster Bible 1995 (Larry Pierce), The Third Millennium Bible 1998 – “I will make him a helper MEET for him.”, A Conservative Version 2005 – “I will make him A HELP MEET for him.”, The Revised Geneva Bible 2009, the English Jubilee Bible 2010 – “a HELP MEET for him.”, and the Hebraic Transliteration Scripture 2010 (Yerusha Shen) – “an HELP MEET for him.”

    Or he might try this Online Hebrew Interlinear Old Testament

    http://studybible.info/IHOT/Genesis%202:18

    H6213
    אעשׂה
    I will make
    H5828
    לו עזר
    him a help
    H5048
    כנגדו׃
    meet for him.

    Many others have pointed out a change in the NKJV in verse 2:18 of which Hilary Clinton would be proud. In the KJB, as well as the ASV, 1917, 1936 translations, the Geneva Bible and others we read: “And the LORD God said, It is not good that man should be alone; I will make him AN HELP MEET FOR him.” The word meet is not archaic. It means simply “fit, suitable or proper”.

    Eve was to be a suitable helper for Adam. As the rest of the Bible teaches us, a woman is to be subject unto her husband and be his helper, not his lord or even his equal in headship. The NASB and NIV are perfectly acceptable here with “a helper suitable for him”, and the ESV is OK with “a helper FIT for him”, but the NKJV says: “a helper COMPARABLE TO him” instead of “an help MEET FOR him.”

    Comparable means “equivalent to”. If I say a Chevy is comparable to a Ford, I’m saying there really isn’t much difference between them; they are equal to each other in function. The NKJV perverts this theological distinction.

    The King James Bible is always right. Get used to it.

    Like

    • E.A. Stephens · October 15, 2015

      Why, hello. Welcome to my blog.

      Thank you for your insights. Admittedly, I was not 100% sure about where the word “helpmeet” found its origin–the references to the Geneva Bible (and others) was very helpful. So thank you for that. Also, thank you for the links to the reference tools.

      However, for your peace of mind, I’d like to clarify a few points, in no order of importance.

      One, I am not, in fact, a product of the American public school system. I was brought up in a private Christian school. The first Bible I ever owned was a KJV, and I grew up with a deep appreciation for that translation.

      Two, I absolutely 100% believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.

      Three, I am not at all out to prove the Bible wrong (see three, above). I am here to diligently study what God’s word actually says. I am a believer and I believe it’s my responsibility to know it inside and out, to the best of my ability. With the growing popularity of liberal theology in seminaries, it’s important to me to establish that the Bible is completely authoritative.

      Four, I did, in fact, look up the synonyms for “meet,” and included two of them in my post, but thank you for adding a more complete list.

      Five, my purpose in writing this post was to explore the full implications of the word “help.” I do not take objection to the way the King James phrases Gen. 2:18 (“an help meet”), but I do get annoyed when people use the word “helpmeet” in conversation–because that’s not a word found in the KJV, or anywhere else. “Help meet,” yes. “Helpmeet,” no. “Helpmate” (with an “a”) appears in the Merriam-Webster dictionary, but I didn’t look into its etymology.

      Again, my pursuit here was to point out the the Hebrew word for “help” carries deeper meaning than is often discussed in Christian circles. “Ezer” is a powerful and beautiful word, and I wanted to give it a little credit. Also, I wanted to give God a little credit for using it.

      Six, I am not a “he.” I am a “she.”

      Thank you for your time. i hope you continue reading.

      Like

  5. willjkinney · October 15, 2015

    Hi E.A. Thank you for having the integrity to actually post my response. I think most people would not have done that. I appreciate your honesty. Sorry about the he/she thing. I had no way of knowing. I agree there is no word “helpmeet”. In fact, the dictionary says under helpmeet – “a word mistakenly read as a single word in “an help meet for him.” You committed the same mistake in your article.

    Now, I would seriously question one statement you made. I hope my question to you gets you to thinking more in depth about what you really believe. You tell us that “I absolutely 100% believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.”

    I have found that most Christians today do NOT believe that any Bible is the inerrant word of God. So, here is the question for you. Most people who are bible agnostics simply dodge the question.

    Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?

    If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?

    If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?

    If you or anyone else reading your blog would like to discuss this issue in our Facebook group, we would love to have you come on over and talk about it. Here is the link

    https://www.facebook.com/groups/21209666692/

    God bless,

    Like

    • E.A. Stephens · October 15, 2015

      The answer to your first question (as phrased) is no. I think what you’re asking is the wrong question. The question should be “is God’s word inerrant and can we know it?” My answer to that question is and will always be “yes.”

      The fact that I don’t think any of man’s translations of God’s original words are 100% true to the original does not mean I doubt that God’s word is alive, that God’s word does not return void, and that God’s word is truth. I also believe that God is powerful enough to make sure His word is understood, even if fallible man is incapable of doing it justice.

      A full discussion of this is beyond the scope of this blog, but thank you for providing the link to the Facebook discussion. I also encourage my readers to go there. I would go there myself, but I do not have Facebook.

      Like

      • willjkinney · October 15, 2015

        Hi E.A. Sister, you dodged the question. If you do not think that any translation “of God’s original words are 100% true” then this means that NO translation is 100% true, right? And THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. You have never seen a single word of them simply because they do not exist. This means (although you were unwilling to come out and say it) that you do not believe that any Bible in any language, translated or Untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. You just couldn’t bring yourself to say what it is that you really believe – or in this case, what you do not believe, in spite of your telling us previously that “I absolutely 100% believe that the Bible is the inerrant word of God.”

        What you really believe in is The Santa Claus Version. You are professing a faith in something that even you know does not exist. Think about it.

        By the way, you might be interested in taking what I call The Bible Agnostic Test. You will find in my article about the Chicago Statement on Inerrancy. Compare these examples of historical facts as recorded in God’s Book. Which ones, according to your “original words of God that are 100% true” got them right? Do you know? Thanks.

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

        God bless.

        Like

      • Sam Stephens · October 16, 2015

        “you dodged the question. … This means (although you were unwilling to come out and say it) that you do not believe that any Bible in any language, translated or Untranslated, is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God.”

        I don’t want to involve myself too deeply here, but I thought I’d point out that she did, in fact, answer the question. Perhaps you skimmed her reply too quickly. Here’s what she said: “The answer to your first question (as phrased) is no.” I don’t think she could have been more direct in answering the question than that.

        Liked by 1 person

      • willjkinney · October 16, 2015

        Hi Sam. Thank you for your comment. However, if you notice my question, she did dodge part of the question. She said
        “I don’t think any of man’s translations of God’s original words are 100% true to the original”. Notice that she said “translation”. But my question was (and remains)

        “Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?

        If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?

        If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?”

        I asked about any Bible in any language, translated OR UNTRANSLATED. And she completely avoided the second part. There are lots of Christians who SAY they believe “the Bible IS the infallible and inerrant words of God”, but they are not referring to any actual Book in print or one that they have ever seen. Rather it is the Phantom “bible”, the Imaginary Fairy Tale Version called “only the originals”

        They are professing a faith in something that even they themselves KNOW does not exist. Now how silly is that?

        Did God lie to us or at least exaggerate when He said that heaven and earth shall pass away, but not my words? Or when He promised to preserve them, was He just kidding?

        By the way, did you take The Bible Agnostic Test? How did you do?

        The next typical response the bible agnostics (they don’t know for sure) come up with is “Well, no doctrines have been changed.” This also is not true at all. If you are interested, one of my articles deals with over 25 examples of how Fake Bible Versions DO Teach False Doctrines, and most of these are not due to variant readings, but have to do with HOW they are translating the same passages.

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

        The polls show that the majority of Christians no longer believe in the inerrancy of the Bible – ANY Bible, and it is only going to get worse. I do not at all believe a person has to be KJB only in order to be saved. The gospel is found in any version out there, no matter how corrupt it may be in many other ways. And God can and does bring people to faith in our Saviour even when they use an inferior and corrupt “bible”. But the issue I am talking about is whether or not God has actually given us a complete and inerrant Bible or not. Most Christians today do not believe He did.

        God bless.

        Like

      • Sam Stephens · October 16, 2015

        Thanks for your prompt response! You have a fair point. I still think she made herself clear that her answer to your question is a decided “no,” but you have an interesting perspective about the implications of that sort of answer. I had never heard the term “Bible Agnostic” before. I’d love to look through your material and discuss this more, but I don’t think this blog post is the proper forum; we’re steering pretty far from E.A.’s topic, and I don’t want to outstay my welcome on her blog. You can email me at samstephens256@gmail.com if you’re willing to share more with me about your views on Scripture.
        Peace of Christ,
        Sam

        Liked by 1 person

  6. sicsempertyrannis · October 15, 2015

    “Here I raise mine Eben-ezer.
    Hither by Thy help I’m come.
    And I hope by Thy good pleasure,
    Safely to arrive at home.”

    Love,

    The Dadster

    Liked by 1 person

    • willjkinney · October 15, 2015

      Great hymn. God bless.

      Like

  7. Jay E. · October 17, 2015

    Can we now credit God with the phrase “behind every great man stands a strong woman”? I loved this piece and can’t wait until Krystal gets home from work to share it with her. We came to a similar conclusion several months ago and have been dealing with people telling us she’s acting “out of her place/position”. Not that it’s any of their business, but at least now we have something to back up our actions! Thank you.

    Liked by 1 person

    • E.A. Stephens · October 17, 2015

      Love it! So glad I could write this at this time in y’alls life.

      Like

  8. Timothy Pemberton · October 20, 2015

    Tim here again, and I’ve just got two questions:

    1. I understand that the phrase more literally translated for our modern tongue is “suitable helper.” That said, why is the woman still only considered a helper through the direct translation? I know that you have explained that is was also used in what is a powerful context in other places, but why is it still helper. In what I would have to say all contexts, help means that the action is not possible without the primary actor. It carries a connotation of giving assistance to. Giving assistance is not the same as doing. Does that make sense? Being a helper is not the same as being the primary actor (at least how I interpret it).

    2. This is one of the big problems I see with many fundamentalists/evangelicals. They have held on so tight to old translations that are consistently losing meaning in terms of our contemporary language. Why should we hold on to the KJV over other newer translations if the older versions obviously can be manipulated because of the dying languages? (more of an opinion question, but I’m still interested in the answer)

    Liked by 1 person

    • E.A. Stephens · October 20, 2015

      Hi, Tim. I feel bad–I haven’t responded to your questions from last time. 😦 I’ll jump on this one, though.

      1. Speaking as someone who “helps” a lot (in a lot of capacities outside of my marriage)–helping *is* a primary action. The fact that men need a helper is more a poor reflection on them than a poor reflection on women–if it is a poor reflection on anybody. He can’t manage without her (and many of the husbands I know will attest to that, Christian or not). Remember, God uses the word “helper” to describe Himself. There’s no such thing, in God’s mind, as “ONLY a helper.” Helper is a really, really high status. “Helper” here means “soldier” and “warrior.” This is not a passive role, but an active one. Without an understanding of what God really means here, “help” carries, as you said, the connotation of “hired help”–something secondary and unnecessary. But I think I see here that in God’s eyes, women are crucial. We are important. We are strong.

      2. I see that problem too, especially when the traditions held are based on faulty assumptions of what the Bible really says–not what it actually says. Traditions can be fine and harmless, so long as they are not held to as Gospel, which unfortunately many Christians have. Christ made it very clear during His time on earth that traditions will not save us–grace will.

      There is no good reason to hold up the KJV as the only authoritative version. The KJV is a good version. I like to read it. But there are other good versions too, and they declare the same truth that’s present in the KJV.
      Holding on to tradition for tradition’s sake is the opposite of what Christ proclaimed. Clinging to one version of the Bible is to idolize it, which is, again, the opposite of what Christ preached.

      I agree–what you’ve mentioned is a significant problem in the church. And it’s part of why I’m studying the area I’ve chosen to study.

      Thanks for reading! 🙂

      Liked by 2 people

      • willjkinney · October 20, 2015

        EA writes: “There is no good reason to hold up the KJV as the only authoritative version. The KJV is a good version. I like to read it. But there are other good versions too, and they declare the same truth that’s present in the KJV.
        Holding on to tradition for tradition’s sake is the opposite of what Christ proclaimed. Clinging to one version of the Bible is to idolize it, which is, again, the opposite of what Christ preached.”

        Sister E. A. It is just a simple fact that you yourself do NOT have any Bible in any language that you honestly believe is now or ever was the complete and inerrant words of God. You believe in that Santa Clause Version of yours called “only the originals”, which you have never seen, couldn’t read if you had them, and that even YOU know do not exist.

        So what I have seen many times from those like you and Timothy Pemberton (Christians with NO inerrant Bible) is to accuse the King James Bible believers of being “idolaters”. This way you can dismiss us Bible believers as being a bunch of wild-eyes, uneducated nuts, and feel better about the fact that you yourselves do not believe in the existence of a real Bible in any language you can actually show us that you think is the inerrant words of God.

        It is as simple as that.

        Are King James Bible believers “Idolaters”?

        Over the years I have talked to literally hundreds of different people about the Bible version issue and whether or not there exists such a thing as a Bible in ANY language that is the complete, inspired and 100% true and inerrant words of the living God.

        One of the charges I have repeatedly heard leveled against the King James Bible believer goes something like this: “You guys are idolaters. You are worshiping the King James Bible more than God!”

        Allow me to address this charge of idolatry with two main points. First, neither I nor any King James Bible believer I have ever run into worships our Bible. I do not have an altar set up in my home complete with incense and burning candles where I bow down and pray to my King James Bible. I don’t do that, nor does anyone else I know.

        I write in my Bible and get it dirty sometimes. I bend the pages and have spilled coffee (or worse) on it. I sometimes toss it in the back of my car or misplace it. I have even had to throw a Bible or two away because it was so worn out, and get a new one. But I can assure you, neither I nor any other Bible believer I know of worships our King James Bible.

        I do however believe it is the infallible words of the living God whom I DO worship.

        Secondly, what I have found over the years is that the persons who label us King James Bible believers as being “idolaters” without exception are professing Christians who themselves do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS or ever was the complete, infallible and 100% true words of God. Without exception.

        They could not show you a copy of what they believe to be the infallible words of God if their life depended on it, and they know it.

        Most of them do not want to face the FACT that they simply do not believe in the inerrancy of the Bible – ANY Bible in any language, including “the” Hebrew and Greek. So, in order to feel better about themselves and to attempt to justify their own position of unbelief in the infallibility of the Bible, they accuse the King James Bible believer of Idolatry and say he or she is worshiping the Bible instead of or more than God.

        I always ask these people who accuse the KJB believer of “idolatry” these simple, straight forward questions. They are very logical and fundamental questions to ask anyone who professes to be a Christian and is discussing the Bible or quoting its verses in an effort to make some point or teach us something.

        The questions go like this: “Do you personally believe that there is such a thing as a Bible in ANY language that is the complete (66 books in a single volume), inspired and 100% true and inerrant words of God? And when other versions or translations differ from your “inerrant Bible” either in the TEXTS or in the meanings, then the other versions are wrong and yours is right? Yes or No?

        If Yes, then can you please give us the specific name of this infallible Bible you say you believe in or give us a link to where we can see it for ourselves so we can compare it to the Bible we are using now to see the differences and similarities? If No, then are you willing to be honest enough to admit it? Thank you.

        What then happens about 95% of the time is that this person gets very uncomfortable because they know that they really do not believe in an infallible Bible and so they avoid answering the question and they dodge it. They act like they didn’t hear you and keep on posting about some other point or else they try to change the subject. But they won’t answer the questions.

        Only about 5% of the people will actually admit that they do not believe that any Bible is the infallible words of God. But they usually do it in a sneaky and subtil way so as to try to give you the impression that they really do. They will generally say something like: “No, I don’t believe that any TRANSLATION is the infallible words of God. They all have mistakes and errors in them. We really can’t fully express nuances of the Hebrew and Greek in English or other languages.”

        You see, they are trying to make you think that they actually have an “untranslated” or “original languages” Bible that they DO believe is the complete and inerrant words of God. But they don’t, and once again, they know they don’t. Just ask them to SHOW you this “original language Bible” they profess to believe is the inerrant words of God. They simply won’t and can’t do it.

        What you will usually hear from these people whom I call “Bible agnostics” (“a” = not, and “gnostic” = to know) or unbelievers in the infallibility of the Scriptures are typically one or two different statements.

        #1. “Only the originals are inspired and inerrant.” Notice they use a present tense verb here – ARE- when they tell us that “only the originals ARE inspired.” They have never seen a single word of these long lost “originals” a day in their lives and most of them couldn’t read them if they had them. So they end up professing a faith in something that they not only have never seen, but that they KNOW does not exist!

        #2. “All bibles say pretty much the same things and no doctrines are changed.” This is one of their favorites, but it is completly false and shows just how little they really know about the textual issues involved and what the Bible Babble Buffet versions actually SAY.

        To see some concrete examples of how very different textually the various versions are – anywhere from 3000 to 5000 words in the New Testament alone and hundreds of words in the Old Testament – see Part Two of ‘Undeniable Proof the ESV, NIV, NASB etc. are the new Vatican Versions’

        http://brandplucked.webs.com/esvcatholicpart2.htm

        And there most definitely ARE some fundamental Doctrines of the Faith that have been changed, weakened or even perverted in all the modern versions. Here are several of these changed doctrines you can take a look at –

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

        To summarize – First, those who call us “Bible Thumpers” or even “idolaters” do so out of a need to feel better and superior about themselves and to justify their own unbelief in the infallibility of The Bible – ANY Bible.

        And secondly, we King James Bible believers are NOT idolaters, but we worship our Creator God and our Redeemer, the Lord Jesus Christ, in both spirit and in truth.

        We love the words of God and have a deep reverence for them because we believe this is the attitude and spirit God wants us to have towards His words.

        “If a man love me, he will keep my words.” John 14:23

        “but to this man will I look, even to him that is poor and of a contrite spirit, and trembleth at my word.” Isaiah 66:2

        “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name.” Psalms 138:2

        “Thy words were found, and I did eat them; and thy word was unto me the joy and rejoicing of mine heart: for I am called by thy name, O LORD God of hosts.” Jeremiah 15:16

        All of grace, believing The Book – the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

        Will Kinney

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

        Like

      • Timothy Pemberton · October 20, 2015

        Hi Will!

        I’m actually an atheist and not a Christian. So you know. I don’t believe in any supernatural powers whatsoever.

        That being said, you entire argument is almost worthless to me except to ask you, “How do you know the KJV is actually god’s word to us humans?” You say that you believe that it is the infallible word of god. Why?

        As for EA’s position, it is one that I can accept as logical. Have you ever heard of the “telephone” game? Where one person starts with something and tells it to other people? By the time the statement gets to the end, the message is all distorted. That is what I believe she is getting at (though she can correct me if she would like).

        Taking an approach such as yours ignores the facts that languages are fluid–they change. What may mean one thing to an early group of people means something else entirely to us. For instance, do you know what “forsooth” means? In old times it meant indeed; now, it is used as sarcasm (so it actually means not at all). According to (what I assume is EA’s) ideology, the language of the Bible must be updated to retain the same meaning. Therefore the KJV is not the official version for the rest of time.

        Liked by 1 person

      • willjkinney · October 20, 2015

        Hi Timothy. The fact that you are an atheist makes it easy to understand why you would look for a way to dismiss the idea that there is such a thing as a complete, inerrant and authoritative words of God book called The Bible. You are hoping that it is not true, and I understand that. I too was an atheist at one time and you sure don’t want to be accountable to a Creator who is your Judge on a coming day.

        But I find it interesting that an atheist and a professing Christian would have so much in common when it comes to the absolute authority and 100% truth of any book called The Bible. E.A. does not believe there is such a thing as an inerrant Bible (in spite of her empty and meaningless “only the originals are inspired and inerrant” confession), and neither do you. Your belief (or rather, unbelief) is based on willful ignorance; hers is just plain ignorance. At least, I hope it is not willful ignorance as well.

        By the way, the word “forsooth” is not found in the King James Bible.

        But if God had actually inspired a Book and included that word in it, I would be much better served to simply learn the meaning of this word and others like it, than to set up my own mind, and thoughts and personal preferences as my “final authority”

        “He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.” Luke 8:8

        “But if any man be ignorant, let him be ignorant.” 1 Corinthians 14:38

        Like

      • Timothy Pemberton · October 20, 2015

        You accused EA of avoiding the question above, and so I feel it is appropriate to call you out on it here. If you wouldn’t mind: How do you know the KJV is god’s word to us humans?

        I do not reject the Bible because I don’t want to be accountable. That would be ridiculous. I don’t believe because there is too much that goes against morality, justice, and logic for the Bible to be the word of god. Please don’t tell me why I don’t believe.

        While she may not believe in an accessible (to her or me as it is in an ancient language) singular text, she does believe in the same general truth that you do. I do not see why you attack her. And it’s not meaningless, there are countless copies of the Hebrew Old Testament. Having access to an almost infinite databank of knowledge is one of the good things about the internet:
        http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/Hebrew_Index.htm

        Liked by 2 people

      • tpelle0808 · October 20, 2015

        @willjkinney I just want to point out that with all the atheists, agnostics, and Christians in these comments, you are the only person who is being rude and condescending. Don’t assume that your opponents are childish and ignorant simply because they disagree with your viewpoint on the current version debate. If your arguments for the KJV are strong enough to stand on their own, then state them without attacking the individuals. I hope there are good arguments for the KJV that don’t rely on attacking other brothers and sisters in Christ.

        Liked by 4 people

      • willjkinney · October 20, 2015

        Hi tpelle. You may object to my language, but when a person SAYS “I believe the Bible is the inerrant words of God…in the originals.”, they are a bible agnostic. This means they do not know (a = not + gnostic = to know) what God said for sure regarding different names,numbers, texts, meanings in hundreds of places and are only hoping the other parts are true. They are giving us a pious sounding posture of pretending to be a Bible believer when they are not.

        Now, that is just what it is. I can’t really help it if you do not like an accurate description. I call people like E.A. and others here “Bible agnostics”. And it WAS ignorance for E.A.to say that we who believe the King James Bible to be the inerrant words of God are “idolaters”.

        Now, if you can prove to us that you yourself are not just another bible agnostic, then all you have to do to clear your good name and put me in my place is to honestly answer the following questions. But most bible agnostics simply dodge them because they are too dishonest to answer them. How about you?

        Do you believe that ANY Bible in any language, translated or untranslated, is now or ever was the complete (66 books on one volume), inerrant and 100% true words of God? Yes or No?

        If Yes, can you show us a copy? Or can you tell us exactly which one it is, so that we too can go out and get one for ourselves? Yes or No?

        If No, you do not believe there is now or ever has been such a thing as a complete and inerrant words of God Bible in any language, are you honest enough to admit it? Yes or No?

        Like

  9. Pingback: Hiatus | Liberated

Let me know what you think!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s