A VINDICATION OF THE UNBOUND SCRIPTURES,
FROM THE CAVILS OF AN UNLEARNED KING JAMES ONLYIST
by  Keith Dotzler 

Every now and then a literary piece comes into existence that simply stuns the reader. Not because of the swelling facts and accurate research expected to be found within it. Not because of the many truths it sets out to accurately present. Not even because of its wished-for reception in academic circles. No, no dear reader. Those things are woefully absent from the literary work that has inspired the writing of this treatise. Quite the contrary, it is because of the arrogance, illogic and numerous fallacious arguments that encumber the work from start to finish, that stunned this author.

In 2003, Rick Norris wrote a book entitled The Unbound Scriptures. Within its pages, he brilliantly shows the several glaring inconsistencies inherent in King James Onlyism (hereafter KJVO), and how KJVO arguments against the modern versions, their editors/translators, and their underlying texts can equally be applied to the KJV, its translators, and its underlying texts. Not long after its publishing, a self-made KJVO apologist by the name of Will Kinney took it upon himself to attempt a refutation of Mr. Norris' 500+ page book, devoting a measly 58 pages to the task! He stated at his discussion group that he responded to and dealt with the "most salient points, one at a time." When one reads Mr. Norris' book, and then reads Mr. Kinney's article, two things become readily apparent:

1) There are many salient points in Mr. Norris' book that were entirely neglected.
2) Most of Mr. Kinney's responses weren't on point at all, but were, rather, a clever diversion.

In the course of this article, not only do I plan on refuting Mr. Kinney and vindicating the work of Mr. Norris, but I will also provide the reader with some salient points which Mr. Kinney entirely avoided -- surely on purpose.

Mr. Kinney's article can be found here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/unboundscriptures.html

I will follow his section titles, for the sake of the reader who wants to follow along.

Part One - The "logical" Premise of Mr. Norris

One immediately gets a sense of the spirit in which Mr. Kinney wrote his article, when he begins by placing the word LOGICAL within quotation marks. In so doing, he is trying to lead the reader into discounting anything Mr. Norris might have to offer, before they've even read his book. Tactics such as this abound in Mr. Kinney's work.

The first point Mr. Kinney tackles is Mr. Norris' [correct] view that logic is necessary when investigating the evidence of what God has actually done throughout history (as opposed to the unfounded and speculative assertions posited by KJVOs, as to what God can possibly do), with regard to the transmission of the sacred text. Mr. Kinney puts a great deal of effort into casting aspersions on Mr. Norris' use of logic, stating that:

It is ironic to see Mr. Norris use "logic" when he attempts to refute the King James only position..........Mr. Norris is very big on logic.........He goes into great detail explaining how we need logic to arrive at sound conclusions concerning the Bible version issue, yet it is blatantly obvious to me that Mr. Norris' logic has failed him miserably in arriving at his conclusions. He has built his entire argument upon a false assumption.

Had Mr. Kinney read Mr. Norris' book thoroughly, he would have seen the many scriptural references that show the word of God to also be "big on logic." So, not only is Mr. Kinney casting aspersions on Mr. Norris, but he's also casting aspersions on the very word of God he claims to defend! Regarding the last sentence cited above, what exactly is Mr. Norris' false assumption, according to Mr. Kinney (hereafter Norris and Kinney)? Simply this:

"God's preserved Word in THE ORIGINAL languages MUST BE THE ULTIMATE AUTHORITY and Standard of truth for evaluating and validating all translations." (Norris, The Unbound Scriptures, pg. 26)

Any educated, sensible human being would agree whole-heartedly with Norris' statement. Contrary to all common sense, Kinney states the following, in response to Norris' correct remarks:

[Norris] starts off his first chapter affirming "THE Bible IS the inspired word of God" - he doesn't say The Bible WAS the inspired word of God - yet he never identifies for us what this Bible IS nor WHERE we can find these ORIGINAL Hebrew and Greek manuscripts.......Mr. Norris has neglected to inform us of the fact that no such animal as "the original Hebrew and Greek" exists on this planet, and he knows it doesn't exist, yet this is the foundation of his anti-King James Only position.

Before dissecting the above, it's only fitting that the reader be apprised of the fact that Norris spends a few pages in his preface discussing the Biblical foundation for logic, and man's expected use of it. Kinney even provides the reader with the following snipped citation:

"A conclusion can only be considered valid and true when the premises on which it is based are true....One false assumption or fallacious link can break a chain of evidence and render the whole argument a failure."

Had Kinney included the next two sentences from Norris' citation (which complete the paragraph), he would have saved himself some embarrassment. Norris writes: "The chain of an argument is no stronger than its weakest link. If fallacies are used in an argument, people can be led to accept its conclusions for inadequate reasons."

Assuming Kinney actually read Norris' book (rather than skimming it), one would reasonably expect him to be very cautious when taking Norris to task on his statements regarding logic. And by cautious, I mean one would expect Kinney to guard his arguments very carefully, lest he prove Norris precisely correct. Such is not the case, however. With Kinney's statement above, he has effectively broken his chain's weakest link, by deploying a false dichotomy within the first 4 paragraphs of his 3-part article!

When a KJVO says the word "Bible," they mean the KJV alone. Likewise, when they say "Bible believer," they refer to those who believe the KJV alone to be the inspired word of God...implying that saints who read, memorize and believe any other version are not Bible believers. Saints prior to 1611 never had to "identify what this Bible is," when they used the word BIBLE. Sadly, KJVOs use a lexicon completely foreign to the historic Church through the ages.

Further, this seems almost needless to point out, yet it must be, due to Kinney's repeated use of this form of argumentation. Norris, in pointing out the inconsistencies of KJVOism, doesn't need to satisfy Kinney's query for the identification of an alternate inerrant translation, nor does Kinney's query that every non-KJVO identify a specific Greek and Hebrew text that is inerrant and inspired need to be satisfied. Norris isn't pushing any form of one version onlyism. Kinney is. When one peruses the scores of articles Kinney has written in defense of any given KJV reading, he will immediately be struck with the fact that Kinney always utilizes this tactic...as if shifting the burden entirely vindicates the numerous inconsistencies found within KJVOism.

As for Norris' foundation, Kinney would have his readers believe a translation can correct its source documents, as well as other translations. Common sense and reason, however, say a translation is validated, governed, and answerable only to its source. A translation's accuracy cannot possibly be determined by comparing it to another translation. This is Norris' point, but Kinney is quick to miss it.

And, lest the reader miss Kinney's slight-of-hand, Norris did not say "God's preserved word in the original Hebrew and Greek manuscripts must be the ultimate authority and Standard of truth for evaluating and validating all translations" above. He said "God's preserved Word in the original languages must be the ultimate authority and Standard of truth for evaluating and validating all translations." Norris is referring to copies.

Kinney next offers this tidbit:

THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS, and there is widespread and profound differences of opinion as to what they might have said, as is amply witnessed by the multitude of conflicting bible versions so prevalent today.

That is why there is a need for textual criticism. Kinney himself makes use of this science...but only when it supports the KJV. When verses such as 1 John 5:7 and the ending to Rev 17:8 are brought to his attention, he forsakes his normal form of argumentation altogether, opting to side with the Latin manuscript tradition in the case of the former verse (for the Johannine Comma is in a clear minority of Greek manuscripts), and he relies upon phantoms of his imagination in the case of the latter.

With regard to his comment about conflicting Bible versions, there were no fewer than 528 editions of the KJV published between the years 1611 and 1774 (see Darlow and Moule's Historical Catalogue of the Printed Editions, vol 1. Be sure that 528 is, by far, a conservative count). Not even Kinney would assert that all 528 of these editions - published by several different printers (an interesting topic, in and of itself) - were in complete agreement with one another. Of course, all English Bibles - from Wycliffe to the Geneva - didn't agree with one another 100%. In fact, not all pre-KJV English Bibles contain each of the 17 New Testament verses Kinney would claim were "omitted" from the modern versions! For example, Coverdale and Tyndale omit Mark 11:26 and Luke 17:36. Likewise, they also lack the phrase "without a cause" at Matt. 5:22.

The fact that there were conflicting Bible versions prior to 1611 is never an issue for which KJVOs would ever separate from other professing Christians. Let there be conflicting Bibles after 1611, however, and cries of condemnation and anathema are hurled (without haste) at all who publish, edit, read, or preach from them. The reason for this? KJVOs, including Kinney, argue for the superiority, inerrancy and perfection of the KJV on an a priori basis -- meaning, they start with the conclusion that the KJV is perfect and inerrant, and work backwards trying to support it. Not only is such a form of argumentation illogical, but it is also dishonest.

Kinney next remarks that:

Mr. Norris makes abundant use of quotes from past theologians in an effort to prop up his "historical view" of inspiration and preservation.

Note again Kinney's use of quotation marks, in an effort to denigrate the very idea of the historical view being the correct view. The Bible speaks of the "faith once delivered unto the saints." In other words, the true saints will have historically believed and taught the same core doctrines throughout the ages. Spurgeon, during the Downgrade Controversy stated "that which is true is not new, and that which is new is not true." Ironically, Kinney has no problem making use of - what he believes to be - the historical view, when defending 1 John 5:7 and other readings, yet when Norris appeals to it, he is to be mocked?

One of those brilliant saints of the past whom Norris cites is one Francis Turretin, who writes: "Our teaching is that ONLY the Hebrew of the O.T. and the Greek of the New have been and ARE authentic in the sense that all controversies concerning faith and religion, and all versions, are to be tested and examined by them." To this, Kinney replies:

Well, this would be very nice indeed, if such a thing as THE Hebrew and THE Greek existed, but they don't, and everybody knows it. How then can we consult something that doesn't exist and use them to "test and examine all versions"?

It doesn't matter how many godly men of old said "only the originals are the standard". They were posturing a textual position that does not exist, and they knew it didn't exist when they said it!

A couple of things should be noted here. First, the Hebrew OT and the Greek NT do exist, within the manuscript record. The saints for over two millennia have read, loved, memorized, believed and, ultimately, died for the scriptures that Kinney says don't exist. A working knowledge of the Reformation and the history of the English Bible would surely repel the truth seeker from any semblance of KJVOism. Such a working knowledge would also disgust one formerly in the grasps of such an aberrant and heretical doctrine (as it does this author, who was KJVO for 4 years).

Secondly, Kinney has made Turretin say something completely different from what he actually said (much like he twisted Norris' words). Turretin didn't say "the original manuscripts were the standard." He obviously was referring to copies.

Thirdly, Kinney invokes the names of "godly men of old" in nearly every article he writes, yet when these men of old are seen to be antagonistic to his KJVO position, their testimony is swept under the rug, and we are told it "doesn't matter." (As a side note, Doug Kutilek has just written an interesting piece about the origins of the phrase, "holy men of old" (a misquote of 2 Pet 2:21), in As I See It, vol. 11, no. 4, April 2008. This author finds it a bit humorous to see a KJVO use that phrase!)

Next, strangely (and perhaps hypocritically), Kinney invokes the 1678 General Baptist Confession to counter Turretin, which says "And by the holy Scriptures we understand the canonical books of the Old and New Testament, AS THEY ARE NOW TRANSLATED INTO OUR ENGLISH MOTHER TONGUE." Kinney adds: "What Bible do you suppose these people were using in 1678?"

Kinney foists upon the reader what can only be described as willful deception, when he tries portraying the framers of that confession as KJV-onlyists. Further, why did he not inform his readers that other Confessions entirely agree with Turretin (and Norris)? The Westminster Confession, chap. 1, part viii., states,

"The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical; so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them."

I would ask what Bible does Kinney suppose the Westminster Divines were using? Further, John Gill says:

"Fourthly, This is to be understood of the Scriptures, as in the original languages in which they were written, and not of translations; unless it could be thought, that the translators of the Bible into each of the languages of the nations into which it has been translated, were under the divine inspiration also in translating, and were directed of God to the use of words they have rendered the original by; but this is not reasonable to suppose. The books of the Old Testament were written chiefly in the Hebrew language, unless some few passages in Jeremiah, Daniel, Ezra, and Esther, in the Chaldee language; and the New Testament in Greek: in which languages they can only be reckoned canonical and authentic; for this is like the charters and diplomas of princes; the wills or testaments of men; or any deeds made by them; only the original exemplar is authentic; and not translations, and transcriptions, and copies of them, though ever so perfect: and to the Bible, in its original languages, is every translation to be brought, and by it to be examined, tried and judged, and to be corrected and amended: and if this was not the case, we should have no certain and infallible rule to go by;" (A Complete Body of Doctrinal and Practical Divinity, vol.1, pg. 18; 1796)

What Bible does Kinney suppose Gill was using?

Additionally, the 1689 London Baptist Confession (LBC) states:

The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them. But because these original tongues are not known to all the people of God, who have a right unto, and interest in the Scriptures, and are commanded in the fear of God to read and search them, therefore they are to be translated into the vulgar language of every nation unto which they come, that the Word of God dwelling plentifully in all, they may worship him in an acceptable manner, and through patience and comfort of the Scriptures may have hope. (1:8 )

The 1742 Philadelphia Confession reads exactly like the above, being identical to the 1689 LBC, except for two chapters. Again, what Bible does Kinney suppose they were using?

William Whitaker, in his masterful Disputation on Holy Scripture (originally published in 1610), states that:

"Although, therefore, our adversaries do not condemn the Hebrew and Greek originals, yet they conclude that not these originals, but the vulgate Latin edition is the authentic text of scripture. Our churches, on the contrary, determine that this Latin edition is very generally and miserably corrupt, is false and not authentic; and that the Hebrew of the old Testament, and the Greek of the new, is the sincere and authentic scripture of God; and that, consequently, all questions are to be determined by these originals, and versions only so far approved as they agree with these originals." (Parker Society, Cambridge University Press; 1849, pg. 111)

William Fulke, contemporary with Whitaker, wrote a treatise entitled A Defense of the Sincere and True Translations of the Holy Scriptures. The totality of this work refutes Kinney's position completely; hence, the examples I could provide would be far too numerous. A few examples will certainly suffice. Fulke writes:

"But as for the Hebrew and Greek that now is, [it] may easily be proved to be the same that always hath been; neither is there any diversity in sentence, howsoever some copies, either through negligence of the writer, or by any other occasion, do vary from that which is commonly and most generally received in some letters, syllables, or words." (Parker Society, Cambridge University Press; 1843, pg. 73)

"We never flee from the Hebrew and Greek in any place, much less in places of controversy; but we always hold, as near as we can, that which the Hebrew and Greek signifieth." (ibid., pg. 100)

"I shall have occasion also to shew, that the papists themselves of our times, maintaining their corrupt vulgar translation against the truth of the original texts of Greek and Hebrew, are most guilty of such corruption and falsification..." (ibid., pg. 13)

"[we can] defend both the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, and the Greek text of the New: not of purpose to discredit the vulgar Latin translation and the expositions of the Fathers, but to fetch the truth, upon which the hope of our salvation is grounded, out of the first fountains and springs, rather than out of any streams that are derived from them. And this we do agreeable to the ancient Fathers' judgments. For who knoweth not what fruitful pains St. Jerome took in translating the scripture out of the original tongue? Neither would he be dissuaded by St. Augustine, who although he misliked that enterprise at the first, yet afterward he highly commended the necessity of the Greek and Hebrew tongue for Latin men, to find out the certain truth of the text in the infinite variety of the Latin interpretations." (ibid., pg. 47-48)

The truth of the matter is this: Turretin, Gill, Fulke, Whitaker, the Westminster Divines, the framers of the 1689 LBC and Philadelphia Confessions, Spurgeon and others -- despite Kinney's attempt to revise history -- all held to this right, standard, and historical view of the scriptures. Common sense dictates that the accuracy of any translation can only be judged by its source. An English translation cannot be the arbiter of what God said, or didn't say.

When Kinney comments next on the preservation of the scriptures, he deals a fatal blow to his position. He writes:

Regarding the practical outworking of the doctrine of the preservation of God's words, the modern version proponents either believe the true words of God are "out there somewhere" in all the variant manuscripts but we are not sure which ones they are; or they reduce "preservation" to the idea that the general, overall message is in all "reliable translations", though the particular words and numbers, many whole verses and the meaning of much of Scripture remains uncertain or even lost. Neither view really means that "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God" has actually been divinely preserved through history to the present day. (emphasis mine)

Kinney's bolded statement is truly incredible, in light of the fact that, with regard to 1 John 5:7, he must jump from the Greek line of manuscripts, to the Latin line, in order to justify the KJV's inclusion of the verse. Neither he, nor any other KJVO, will ever give their justification for doing so, nor will they ever tell us when and why God goes about the business of preserving his words in Greek in one instance, and Latin in another. This is simply the result of a priori argumentation, as stated earlier.

Additionally, we have the ending to Rev 17:8 ("and yet is"), which was never seen in all of history until 1516, when Erasmus published his first edition of the Greek New Testament. Can Kinney truly say that the ending to Rev 17:8 - as found in the KJV - was divinely preserved through history to the present day? In a discussion I had with him, he claims the reading was found in thousands of manuscripts that are no longer extant. Arguments from silence are certainly no way to arrive at the authentic readings of scripture. Were Kinney to follow such an argument to its logical conclusion, Christians could never be sure that any reading in their Bibles was originally given by God. Who's to say that the majority of "no longer extant manuscripts" didn't agree with Aleph, which has Jesus being killed by a spear?

Kinney goes on in his diatribe to cite some textual critics of the past. Of particular note, I found his citation of R. M. Grant (whom Kinney says exhibits a "despairing attitude"), quite interesting:

"The primary goal of New Testament textual study remains the recovery of what the New Testament writers wrote."

KJVOs go to extreme lengths in ignoring requests for the names of Bibles or texts that were perfect and inerrant prior to the KJV. In so doing, they demolish their own view of preservation. In essence, they entirely concur with Grant's "despairing" statement above, simply because they aren't arguing for the preservation of the perfect and inerrant word of God at all, but for its restoration! They believe the scriptures, as originally given, were perfect and inerrant. They believe the KJV is perfect and inerrant (though, which edition of the KJV meets this so-called perfection and inerrancy has yet to be determined). Yet Kinney and other KJVOs cannot tell us with absolute certainty which Bibles were perfect and inerrant in between the originals and 1611.

Logic demands that a perfect and inerrant translation of God's word have a perfect and inerrant source. Since no KJVO, including Kinney, will ever admit the truthfulness of this deduction, they must ultimately argue for that which they condemn -- that picking and choosing readings from a variety of tainted sources can yield an untainted, perfect, and inerrant translation. In their voluminous literature against the modern versions, they speak very unfavorably of such eclecticism.

On page 11 of The Unbound Scriptures, Norris cites KJV-only advocate Rick Yarnell, who claimed: "If the Holy Spirit was in the translation, then it is an inerrant translation, for the Holy Spirit would not be a party to anything less." Norris then asks the obvious question: "If this claim were true, would it not also mean that believers must be 100% perfect, infallible, and sinless since the Holy Spirit is in them?" True to form, Kinney begins this paragraph by impugning Norris' logic. And - also true to form - he proves Norris' earlier statement about logical fallacies entirely correct yet again. Observe Kinney:

What Norris misses here is the fact that the Bible itself claims to be the perfect, inspired word of God, whereas the same Bible tells us that believers are not perfect or sinless now, but one day shall be. This is an example of the logic Mr. Norris employs to build his case.

The Bible does not claim perfection for an English translation, nor does it claim inspiration for such. Psalm 12:6 states that "the words of the Lord are pure words," while 2 Tim 3:16 states that "all scripture is given by inspiration of God." With these references readily in view, we can conclude the following:

1. David and Paul had pure and inspired scripture, despite the fact that there was no 66 book canon, and despite the fact that the KJV didn't exist.

2. If the KJVO (and Kinney's) [mis]interpretation of Psalm 12:6 be admitted, then the words of the Lord were not pure prior to David's writings (see verse 7).

3. If the Bible's claims for itself apply to English translations, then all versions containing Psalm 12:6 and 2 Tim 3:16 equally qualify as perfect and inerrant Bibles. Such being the case, Kinney must needs go to the manuscript evidence to prove the KJV alone to be perfect and inerrant, which, ironically, countermands the very point he is trying to make against the original Hebrew and Greek!

Moving on, the following diversion is attempted by Kinney:

Commenting on a KJB believer who says the AV of 1611 is the standard by which all translations are judged, Mr. Norris says: "In contrast to the claims of KJV advocates, God's Word does not teach that God infallibly guided the KJV translators to restore perfectly the original text from a number of slightly imperfect printed editions of the Greek New Testament. Should the authority of God's Word in Hebrew and Greek be dethroned and replaced by the finite renderings of the uninspired KJV translators?"

Mr. Norris' "logic" has once again failed him here. He speaks of the authority of the Hebrew and Greek, yet does not identify WHICH GREEK and which Hebrew he is talking about.

Need anything be said at all? "Which Greek" and "which Hebrew" is immaterial to the fact that the scriptures were, indeed, originally penned in those languages; hence, they alone have the authority over any translations made from them. The reader will notice that Kinney did not respond to Norris' point at all. Rather, he diverts attention away from it, by going into a tailspin over the texts that some modern versions used, or departed from. He follows this tact for the next couple of paragraphs, dragging the reader so far away from Norris' original point, that it's almost completely forgotten. Almost.

Kinney's continued insertion of the word LOGIC within parentheses, when he exhibits none of his own, is proving him to lack any sort of credibility whatsoever as a writer, much less as an apologist.

Of particular interest to this author, is the following hypocritical remark by Kinney:

As for the NASB, NIV, and the ESV, they each reject ALL Hebrew texts in scores of places, thinking they have been corrupted, and often do not even agree with each other on which parts of the Hebrew text they think contain "scribal errors" or where they believe the text is incomplete and must be suplimented [sic] from some other source like the Syriac, Septuagint, or the Latin. (bolding mine)

Why doesn't Kinney tell his readers that the KJV has also rejected the Masoretic Hebrew text in several places, opting instead for readings from the Syriac, Septuagint, or the Latin Vulgate (e.g. Psalm 22, Joshua 21, etc.)?

Having nearly concluded part one, I shall do my best to detain you no further. Just a few more comments are in order. Kinney says:

It is true that God's word does not mention the King James Bible - But neither does it mention the NASB, NIV, or ESV. God does promise to preserve His words somewhere on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. Mr. Norris tries to give the impression that he knows what they are, but he NEVER ONCE tells us exactly WHERE we can find them.

Kinney's admission in the first sentence forces him into a logical dilemma. If God's word doesn't mention the KJV, and if God's word fails to mention the NASB, NIV, or ESV, then, of necessity, the scriptures do not support the theory that the words of the Lord must be preserved in a single manuscript, text-type, printed edition, or translation. Further, the truthfulness or falsity of KJVO tenets is not dependant upon whether Norris can tell Kinney "exactly where" he can find God's word. This is yet another diversion on Kinney's part.

He next writes that:

Mr. Norris goes into great detail explaining how the KJB translators used a variety of Greek texts, manuscripts and other versions to put together the finished product, explaining for us that no two manuscripts are exactly the same and the KJB does not match any of them 100%.

However it should be noted that today's scholars go through the same sifting process in an attempt to restore what they think are the words of God and no manuscript reads the way the NASB, NIV, or ESV do either.

By now, the reader must surely be tiring of Kinney's fallacious argumentation. Norris isn't NASB-only, nor is he NIV-only. What manuscripts agree or disagree with those versions is entirely irrelevant to Norris' point. The only reason Norris makes mention of the KJV translators' use of a variety of sources is to counter the claims of Kinney and others, who vilify and condemn the modern version translators for doing the exact same thing the KJV translators did. Kinney has become a master at reversing the argument - turning the plaintiff into the defendant.

And, just when you thought it couldn't get any worse, we are met with the dreaded, but oft-used, post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy: Says Kinney:

Mr. Norris seems to dismiss the possibility that God has kept His promises to preserve His words and done so by guiding a group of men to put together a perfect Bible in the form of a translation.

Did God promise to preserve his words? Yes. Did he promise to preserve them in a single volume? No. Did he promise to preserve them in a translation of the original languages in which the scriptures were given by inspiration? Again, no. The promise of preservation and the existence of the KJV do not necessarily follow one another. Put another way, the KJV isn't necessarily the fulfillment of the promise, though Kinney argues backwards from that assumed conclusion.

Kinney continues with the pontificating:

The King James Bible believer puts his faith in Almighty God to fulfill His promises

Is Kinney implying that Geneva Bible believers don't put their faith in Almighty God to fulfill his promises? What about Tyndale Bible believers, or Coverdale Bible Believers?

In concluding part one, I can only hope that you, dear reader, have gotten a good grasp of how Kinney operates. In the next 16 parts, you will be met with nothing less than the same. Kinney's arguments are so easily combated, that, were it not for the fact that this author felt it his duty to stand up in defense of a brother unjustly vilified and misrepresented, he wouldn't have wasted his time with Kinney's machinations.

___________________________________________________________________