Featured Side-stepping other motivations for KJV

I accept irrefutable truth. You have presented no irrefutable truth from the Scriptures that states or teaches your KJV-only claims or opinions. Opinions are not irrefutable truth.

You may incorrectly assume that when you assume or claim connections when you do not actually prove that they exist that it is irrefutable truth, but it is not.

Jumping to unproven conclusions or to wrong conclusions based on use of fallacies would not be irrefutable truth even if you claim it is.

 

That's true.

 

Are you repeating Gail Riplinger's false claim?

Riplinger claimed in her tract that the "NKJV omits the word ‘God’ 51 times” (Church Bus News, April-June, 1996, p. 26). This inaccurate claim seems to be based on a simple comparison of the NKJV to the KJV and not on a comparison to the preserved Scriptures in the original languages from which the KJV is translated. This count likely does not take into consideration the times where the KJV added the word “God” in italics.

In response to this misleading charge, James D. Price noted: "The truth is that the KJV added the word "God" in fifty one or more places where the Hebrew or Greek text did not contain it--and that without using italics in most cases. This was because the KJV used dynamic equivalence paraphrases such as 'God forbid,' 'God save the king,' or 'God speed' instead of a more literal expression in good English. In all these places the NKJV made the KJV more literal and more faithful to the Hebrew and Greek texts without undermining the place of God in the Bible" (False Witness of G. A. Riplinger's Death Certificate for the NKJV, p. 4). Price then discussed these times and proved the faithfulness of the NKJV to the Hebrew and Greek texts underlying the KJV.

In the introduction to his translation, Noah Webster noted that the phrase God forbid was used several times in the KJV "without any authority from the original languages for the name of God" (p. ix). The KJV has “God forbid” eight times in the O. T. and fifteen times in the N. T. D. A. Waite acknowledged that the Greek for the KJV's "God forbid" would be literally translated as "may it not be" (Foes, p. 96). KJV-only author David Cloud described this example as “’a little something like’ that which is called dynamic equivalency today” (Bible Version Question/Answer, p. 157). KJV-only author William Grady asserted that “occasionally” the KJV translators “even had the ‘audacity’ to insert an English idiom, with no manuscript authority whatsoever, such as the phrase ‘God forbid’” (Given by Inspiration, p. 44).

David Daniell indicated that Luther’s German Bible has “das sey ferne (be that far away)” instead of “God forbid” (William Tyndale, p. 142). At Acts 10:14, Tyndale's and Matthew's Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV has "Not so." At Acts 11:8, Tyndale's, Matthew's, Whittingham's, and Geneva Bibles have "God forbid" while the KJV again has "Not so." At 2 Samuel 20:20, the Geneva and Bishops’ Bibles have “God forbid” twice while the KJV has “Far be it” twice. This verse has the same Hebrew word twice that the KJV rendered “God forbid” several other times. At 1 Samuel 20:9, the 1560 Geneva’s rendering [“God keep it from thee”] and the Bishops’ rendering [“God keep that from thee”] were revised in the KJV [“Far be it from thee”]. According to a consistent, just application of this misleading KJV-only allegation, would Riplinger and other KJV-only advocates claim that the KJV omitted the name of God at these verses?

Were the KJV translators always faithful to their underlying texts and always consistent in following the renderings of the earlier English Bibles? Instead of keeping the rendering of the earlier Bibles, the KJV translators corrected the addition of the word "God" in several of them at 1 Kings 1:31. (See second appendix). At Nehemiah 2:3, Coverdale’s and Matthew’s have a rendering with the name of God [“God save the king’s life for ever”] and the Geneva and Bishops’ have a similar rendering [“God save the king for ever”]. The KJV does not add the name of God at this verse [“let the king live for ever”]. At Daniel 2:4, Coverdale’s, Matthew’s, and Bishops’ Bible have the name of “God” [“O king, God save thy life for ever”] where the Geneva and KJV does not. Coverdale’s and Matthew’s also have a similar rendering at the following verses (Dan. 3:9, 5:10, 6:6, 6:21).

In their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the KJV translators acknowledged that the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Kings 11:12, and 2 Chronicles 23:11 was "let the king live" and at 1 Kings 1:25 "let king Adonijah live." Perhaps because of their note at verse 25, the KJV translators did not include this marginal note at 1 Kings 1:34 and 39 where it reads "God save King Solomon." The Geneva Bible translators also had marginal notes giving the literal meaning of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, and 1 Kings 1:25. God's Word in the Hebrew does not contain the word "God" nor the word "save" in these verses. The KJV translators translated the same Hebrew word used here as "live" many times. Why didn't the KJV translators put the literal meaning of the Hebrew in the text rather than in the margin? Why did they correct the same rendering in the earlier English Bibles at other verses while keeping them at some? The 1853 Leeser's, 1917 Holy Scriptures According to the Masoretic Text, and 1985 TANAKH all have "Long live the king" as the translation of the Hebrew at 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, 2 Kings 11:12, and 2 Chronicles 23:11. It is clearly incorrect to claim that modern translations are omitting "God" in these verses.

Not applying his own question to the KJV, D. A. Waite asked: "Is it 'needed' to add the Name of God when the Name of Deity is not in the Hebrew or Greek texts? I do not believe that it is" (Foes, p. 19). On this same page, Waite also wrote: “They are adding God’s name when God’s name is not in the Hebrew. Is that dynamic equivalence ’needed?’ Is that necessary or needful to add God’s name when God is not there? No, this is an error.” According to a consistent application of Waite’s own statements, is it an error when the KJV added the name of God when it was not in the original languages?

Kirk DiVietro claimed: "The King James/TR defenders do not ask the new bibles to enter anything into their translations that is not in the original texts" (Anything But the KJB, p. 58). However, the evidence clearly indicates that many KJV defenders do in effect ask or demand that translators put words into their translations that are not in the preserved Scriptures in the original languages. Did KJV-only advocates in effect demand that God alter His Word in Heaven to match some edition of the KJV?

At Matthew 28:9, Tyndale's 1526 New Testament and Coverdale's Bible have "God speed you." The KJV translators corrected this addition of the word "God" although they kept it at 2 John 10 and 11. In his introduction to his translation of the Bible, Noah Webster suggested that God speed may be a mistake for good speed (p. ix). Webster noted that the adjective good in Saxon was spelled god. He continued: "In the phrase used in scripture, which seems to have been formerly proverbial, the Saxon god for good has continued to be written with a single vowel, and the word being mistaken for the name of the Supreme Being, it came to be written with a capital initial, God" (Ibid.). Webster declared: "God speed, as now used, is as improper as God welfare, God success, or God happiness" (p. x). At the entry for God speed, David Cloud noted that it is “an old English phrase for greeting” and that “the same Greek word is translated “hail” (Matt. 26:49), “rejoice” (2 John 4), “greeting” (Acts 15:23, James 1:1), and “farewell” (2 Cor. 13:11)” (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 166; Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 40). Wright maintained that it was “a salutation, signifying literally, good speed or success” (Bible Word-Book, p. 290).

The KJV corrected the addition of the phrase "to God" at Galatians 5:12 in the earlier English Bibles ["I would to God"]. On the other hand, the KJV retained this same addition from the earlier English Bibles at 1 Corinthians 4:8. In his introduction, Webster noted: "These phrases ["Would God, would to God"] occur in several passages in which they are not authorized by the original languages, in which the name of the Supreme Being is not used; but the insertion of them in the version, has given countenance to the practice of introducing them into discourses and public speeches, with a levity that is incompatible with a due veneration for the name of God" (p. ix). In his 1833 Bible, Webster corrected the addition of the name of God at 1 Corinthians 4:8 just as the KJV translators had at Galatians 5:12. At its entry would to God, William Swinton as edited by T. J. Conant maintained “this exclamation is purely English, and is not found in the Hebrew or Greek Scriptures” (Bible Word-Book, p. 106). In the O. T., the KJV has these renderings [would God, would to God] at several verses where a Hebrew name for God is not found (Exod. 16:3, Num. 11:29, 14:2, 20:3, Deut. 28:67, Josh. 7:7, Jud. 9:29, 2 Sam. 18:33, 2 Kings 5:3). At Deuteronomy 28:67, the 1535 Coverdale's Bible had not added the name of God in its rendering ["Who shall give me evening"] as the KJV had ["Would God it were even"]. Webster also corrected this addition of the name of God at this verse with his rendering ["O that it were evening"]. At eight other verses, one or more of the earlier English Bibles have the rendering “would God” or “would to God” where the KJV does not have the name “God” (Gen. 30:34, 2 Sam. 23:15, Est. 7:4, Job 13:5, Job 16:4, Job 19:24, Job 23:3, Jer. 9:2).

 

What you assume that you found is misleading and involves the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards. You ignore the correct standard and foundation on which the KJV and the NKJV is based--the preserved Scriptures in the original languages.

Actual verifiable facts demonstrated how your claim is unsound and wrong.

 

I properly and soundly demonstrated what a consistent, just application of your own inconsistent claim would suggest.

Are you admitting that your claim involves the use of unscriptural, unjust measures/standards since you will not apply the same ones justly to the KJV?

 

Claims, opinions, assertions, and ideas can be soundly discussed and evaluated at this forum without any need for carnal smear tactics, personal attacks, and unscriptural attempts to bite and devour believers.

 

You do not prove your opinion to be true. I did my own examination of the evidence involving years of research and checking well over 1,000 sources. I checked original-language texts, pre-1611 English Bibles, the 1569 and 1602 Spanish Bible, the 1534 Luther's German Bible, and over 500 editions of the KJV and many other sources. I have likely compiled over 1400 pages of information that I have written.

Some websites may have possibly taken information from my books or possibly from some other sources, but that would not prove the information to be inaccurate. You do not answer nor refute the verifiable facts that I have presented.

Use of a the fallacy of guilt by association would not prove your erroneous reasoning or unproven allegations to be true. You do not apply this fallacy to the fact that the Church of England makers of the KJV borrowed some renderings from the Latin Vulgate, from Hebrew-Latin lexicons which often had renderings in the Latin Vulgate as definitions of Hebrew words, from Greek-Latin lexicons which often had renderings in the Latin Vulgate as definitions of Greek words, and directly from the 1582 Roman Catholic Rheims New Testament.

 

Is a KJV-only poster in effect suggesting that KJV-only allegations against present English Bible translations involve use of trickery and deceit since that is what he calls applying the same measures/standards to the KJV that are used against present English Bibles?