The KJV...the "Model T Bible Version

One of the ways in which some believers or KJV defenders have attempted to claim scriptural support for their KJV-only view is through their use of a tree analogy or metaphor.

On the tree charts in several KJV-only books, Bible translations are listed or pictured as branches of a tree. At the bottom of one of his two tree charts, J. J. Ray proclaimed: “The tree is known by his fruit (Matthew 12:33)” (God Wrote Only one Bible, p. 71). At the bottom of his good-tree-of-Bibles chart, Peter Ruckman asserted: “Good fruit comes from a good tree (Matt. 12:33)” (Bible Babel, p. 82). Ruckman declared: “An incorrupt tree cannot bring forth corrupt fruit” (Alexandrian Cult, Part Seven, p. 26). Paul Fadena seems to have copied Ruckman's tree in his booklet (We Have It in Writing, p. 16). Mickey Carter's good tree (Things That Are Different, p. 112) seems to be the same chart as the one in Ray's book. Doug Stauffer declared: “Pure fruit can come only from a pure tree (Matthew 7:15-20)” (One Book Stands Alone, p. 5). Concerning “how to judge a Bible,” Ed DeVries said: “Go to the source” as he appealed to Matthew 7:16-18 (Divinely Inspired, p. 25). Jack McElroy also cited and appealed to Matthew 7:17 and Luke 6:44, which refer to a good tree and its good fruit (Which Bible Would Jesus Use, p. 308). Alan O’Reilly claimed: “Vindication of the AV1611 as the pure word of God rightly begins with a study of its roots” (O Biblios, p. 4). After citing Matthew 7:17-18, Ed Moore declared: “When this principle is applied to translating the Bible, we can know that the good manuscripts when faithfully adhered to, will produce a faithful translation in any language” (Final Authority, p. 15).

 

The exact, specific words spoken by Paul and other apostles by means of the Holy Spirit and later written referred to those words that were written in the original languages (1 Cor. 2:13, 2 Pet. 1:21, 2 Pet. 3:16, 2 Pet. 3:2, John 17:8, Luke 18:31, Heb. 1:1-2).

The Lord Jesus Christ directly referred to “the things that are written by the prophets” (Luke 18:31), and the actual words directly written by the prophets themselves would have been in the original language in which God gave them by inspiration to the prophets. The oracles of God [the Old Testament Scriptures] given to the prophets were committed unto the Jews in the Jews‘ language (Rom. 3:2, Matt. 5:17-18, Luke 16:17). The specific features “jot“ and “tittle“ at Matthew 5:18 and the “tittle” at Luke 16:17 would indicate the particular original language words of the Scriptures given by inspiration of God to the prophets. The actual, specific, exact words which the LORD of hosts sent in His Spirit by the prophets would be in the original language in which God gave them (Zech. 7:12). Would not the actual words written by the prophet be in the same language in which he originally wrote them (Matt. 2:5, Luke 18:31)? Would not the words spoken by the LORD by the prophets be in the language in which God gave them (2 Kings 21:10, 2 Kings 24:2)? It would be sound to conclude that the actual words of the prophets themselves would be in the original language in which they were given (Acts 15:15). The scriptures of the prophets (Rom. 15:26) would be in the language in which they were given to them. A writing from Elijah the prophet would be written in the language in which Elijah wrote it (2 Chron. 21:12). The actual words of Haggai the prophet would be in the language in which he spoke or wrote them (Haggai 1:12). The scroll of the LORD to be sought and read at the time that Isaiah the prophet wrote would have been a scroll written in Hebrew (Isa. 34:16). The apostle John referred to his own actual words he himself was writing in the language in which he wrote them (1 John 2:12-14). “Moses wrote all the words of the LORD” (Exod. 24:4). The Lord Jesus Christ stated: “For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words?” (John 5:46-47). In another apparent reference to the writings of Moses, Jesus asked the Pharisees concerning whether they had not read them (Matt. 19:4, 7-8). The actual writings of Moses referred to by Jesus would have to be in the original language in which Moses directly wrote them. The word of the LORD by the hand of Moses (2 Chron. 35:6, Num. 4:45) would be in the original language in which Moses spoke or wrote it. The LORD commanded by the hand of Moses (Lev. 8:36, Num. 4:37, Num. 15:23, Num. 27:23), and the LORD had spoken by the hand of Moses (Lev. 10:11). When later Jewish scribes made a copy of the writings of Moses, they copied his same words in the same language in which Moses had originally wrote them.

Do these Scripture passages teach or at least clearly infer that the doctrine of preservation would concern the actual specific original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles?

A sound understanding of some additional Bible truths would affirm or demonstrate that Bible preservation would have to concern the Scriptures in the original languages. The scriptural truths (Deut. 4:2, Deut. 12:32, Prov. 30:6, Rev. 22:18-19) that warn against adding to and taking away from the Scriptures would clearly and directly relate to the doctrine of preservation and to the making of copies of the original-language Scriptures. Concerning which specific words did God directly state these warnings and instructions? These commands and instructions must embrace the Scriptures in the original languages since the very nature of translation requires that words may have to be added or omitted to make it understandable in another language. Thus, these verses were important instructions and warnings given particularly and directly concerning the Scriptures in the original languages. These verses could also be understood to suggest that God gave to men an important role or responsibility in preservation of the Scriptures on earth. These commands or instructions would indicate the need and responsibility for the making of exact, accurate copies of the Scriptures in the original languages. These commands or instructions also demonstrate that the source being copied was the standard and authority for evaluating the copy made from it. These commands would also suggest that the copies of Scripture were not given or made by the means or process of a miracle of inspiration.

KJV defenders present no scriptural case that the doctrine of preservation of the Scriptures refers directly to the textual criticism decisions and translation decisions involved in the making of the 1611 KJV.

 

Here is the NET footnote indicating a bigger difference:

44tc Most witnesses (א2 B2 L Θ Ξ Ψ Ë1,13 Ď sy bo) have ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία (en anqrwpoi" eudokia, “good will among people”) instead of ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας (en anqrwpoi" eudokia", “among people with whom he is pleased”), a reading attested by א* A B* D W pc (sa). Most of the Itala witnesses and some other versional witnesses reflect a Greek text which has the genitive εὐδοκίας but drops the preposition ἐν. Not only is the genitive reading better attested, but it is more difficult than the nominative. “The meaning seems to be, not that divine peace can be bestowed only where human good will is already present, but that at the birth of the Saviour God’s peace rests on those whom he has chosen in accord with his good pleasure” (TCGNT 111).

 

(1) It is the same thing I point out. I have highlighted the Greek in blue. Again the difference is only one letter.

ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία
ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας

That is the same thing I posted above. Here it is again.

The TR has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκία.
The CT has: ἐν ἀνθρώποις εὐδοκίας.

Note the sigma on the end. That bigger difference you of which you speak is because of only one letter.

The Net Bible also points out one is in the genitive case and the other is in the nominative case (highlighted in green). The two phrase are exactly alike except for that one letter and that accounts for the change in translation.


(2) The Net Bible cites A Textual Commentary on the Greek New Testament, Second Edition by Bruce M. Metzger. Metzger makes the same points.

"The difference between the AV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace, good will toward men,”

and the RSV, “Glory to God in the highest, and on earth peace among men with whom he is pleased!”

is not merely a matter of exegesis of the meaning of the Greek, but is first of all one of text criticism. Does the Angelic Hymn close with εὐδοκία or εὐδοκίας?

The genitive case, which is the more difficult reading, is supported by the oldest representatives of the Alexandrian and the Western groups of witnesses. The rise of the nominative reading can be explained either as an amelioration of the sense or as a palaeographical oversight (at the end of a line εὐδοκίας would differ from εὐδοκία only by the presence of the smallest possible lunar sigma, little more than a point, for which it might have been taken – thus ⲉⲩⲇⲟⲕⲓⲁⲥ)."


(3) In Mounce's grammar (3rd ed) at the beginning of each chapter there is a section called Exegetical Insight. At the start of chapter seven this text (i.e. Luke 2:14) is examined. It states:

"'Peace on earth, good will toward men' (Luke 2:14, KJV). You have probably all received Christmas cards containing this part of the angels’ song to the shepherds on the fields of Bethlehem. But most modern translations read differently: 'on earth peace to men on whom his [God’s] favor rests' (NIV); 'and on earth peace among those whom he [God] favors' (NRSV). The difference between the KJV and the others is the difference between the nominative and the genitive.

The Greek manuscripts used to translate the KJV contain εὐδοκία (nominative), whereas the older manuscripts used to translate the modern versions contain εὐδοκίας (genitive) —literally translated, 'of good will' or 'characterized by [God’s] good pleasure.' In other words, the peace that the angels sang that belonged to the earth as a result of the birth of Christ is not a generic, worldwide peace for all humankind, but a peace limited to those who obtain favor with God by believing in his Son Jesus (see Romans 5:1). What a difference a single letter can make in the meaning of the text!"

 

The No-KJV-Ever people are nuts on that point. It is not a scholarly viewpoint by any stretch of the imagination.

 

I do not believe there are any such people here. I could be wrong but I think you made that up. No offense meant.

They are most definitely scholarly viewpoints. They may be wrong, but they are definitely scholarly.

 

Don't you think that No-KJV-Ever is a good name for people who ignorantly attack the KJV with their fake scholarship?

 

I think that your scholarship is fake but I imagine that you have a Model A Ford.

 

That would be William Tyndale.

 

Don't we have enough "good translations" to compare the KJV with? DO you prefer the "Living Bible" or "Good News for Modern Man"? to the KJV?

 

Cyprian got it somewhere you are unaware of.

 

I don't think he's succeeding in convincing many people of anything other than that he has an agenda. I think everyone can see that he has an axe to grind.

 

Literally "in men of goodwill"
εν ανθρωποις ευδοκιας 00.4% of the manuscript evidence. And there are two more variants. 00.2%

". . . goodwill . . . ." ευδοκια 99.4% of the manuscripts.

 

I challenge you and Roby to post your identities.
List the churches you have pastored along with the time periods you have served.
List all the ministries God has authorized you to begin and shepherd.

For there are men of the highest calling, with tremendous responsibility, with ministries that God has greatly blessed and sustained, that you strive to discredit.

Let's compare your fruit to there's.

 

Your opinion and allegation is very wrong. I do not strive to discredit any pastor that preaches or teaches from the KJV. I have not condemned anyone for preaching or teaching from the KJV.

Your unproven, incorrect allegation would disobey the Scriptures as translated in the KJV as it bears false witness.

What I actually disagree with is human, non-scriptural KJV-only reasoning/teaching. What I disagree with is the making of incorrect, unproven exclusive only claims for the KJV.

I accept all that the Scriptures state and teach about themselves. I defend and accept the KJV as what it actually is--a good overall English translation in the same sense as the pre-1611 English Bibles such as the Geneva Bible are and as post-1611 English Bibles such as the NKJV are.

You do not demonstrate that I state anything that is not true concerning the KJV.

Perhaps you are guilty of what you incorrectly accuse me as you try to discredit my presenting the truth.