Featured Preservation: over 2000 missing words in KJV's NT?

The title for this thread is intended to get the attention of readers, but it is not actually the main point or subject of this thread. The overall purpose and subject of this thread is to consider whether a Bible translation (including the KJV) actually preserves every original-language word of Scripture.

The following statement in bold type is my assertion that I consider to be true based on known, verifiable facts.

Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

Do you agree with my statement in bold type? Can you point out any verifiable facts that you consider to be a problem for it?

According to those known, verifiable facts, I think that many KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates make assertions attempting to apply preservation to the KJV that are not true. I assume that they may sincerely believe what they claim, but the problem is that what they believe may not be true (not proven to be true) or is not true (can be proven not to be true).

The eye-catching or attention-getting title for this thread is based on an assertion by Robert Young that the KJV's NT would be missing about 2000 definite articles that are found in the Greek NT. It may be a rounded-off count. There are many other words "missing" (for which the KJV gives no rendering in English) that would make it over 2,000. I would change the title from "over" to "about" but I cannot edit it.

In the preface to the revised edition of Young’s Literal Translation, Robert Young claimed that “there are about two thousand instances in the New Testament where these translators [of the KJV] have thus omitted all notice of the definite article, not to say anything of the great number of passages where they have inserted it, though not in the original.”

By the way, I am not suggesting that the KJV is wrong in all cases to omit them. One point is that too often when this accusation of "missing words" is typically thrown out, no exact same measures/standards are applied justly to all Bible translations. According to the same measures/standards that KJV-only advocates and TR-only advocates may use to allege missing words in modern English Bibles, the KJV may be guilty of having some of the same-type missing words in other places. For example, there are places where the KJV has no noun in English even though its Hebrew text or Greek text has a noun.

The KJV does not preserve every original-language word of Scripture by providing an English rendering for each and every word.

 

A Bible translation does not take the actual same or identical original-language words that were given by inspiration of God and preserve them unaltered or unchanged and without any additions of men. The inspired, preserved original-language words of Scripture are changed to different words in a Bible translation. KJV-only author John C. Phillips acknowledged: “The word same means identical, not different or other” (King James Contender, May, 1980, p. 2). Mickey Carter claimed: “Things that are different are not the same” (Things That Are Different, p. 77). Phil Stringer also asserted: “Things that are different are not the same” (Unbroken Bible, p. 210). Al Lacy contended: “DIFFERENT WORDS CAUSE CONFUSION” (Can I Trust, p. 106). Jack Hyles asserted: “Two things that don’t agree cannot both be right” (Need for an Every-Word Bible, p. 23). Jack Hyles claimed: “If two books do not contain the same words, one of them cannot contain the words of God” (p. 16). T. S. Luchon declared: “God wants His Words written as He gave the Words, and He wants no other Words!” (From the Mind of God to the Heart of Man, p. 40). Samuel Gipp maintained that “we have God promising to preserve the same words that He inspired” (Answer Book, p. 86). Marty Braemer claimed: “Change the wording and you change the meaning” (This Little Light, p. 1). Troy Clark asserted: “Changed words cease to be Majority Text Scripture” (Perfect Bible, p. 289). John C. Phillips proclaimed: “The preservation of a work in a perfect state must, of necessity, include all aspects of a work inspired in a perfect state. If any part of the inspiration is omitted, then the product cannot be identified as preserved” (King James Contender, Nov.-Dec., 1980, p. 2).

It is a verifiable fact that Bible translation into English before 1611 and in 1611 did not prevent the original-language words of Scripture from changing during translating since the process of translation actually changes most of them into different English words, changes some original-language words into different forms and different parts of speech, provides no English words for some original-language words of Scripture, and adds many words for which there was no original-language word of Scripture. The truth is that 1611 KJV does not contain all the same, identical original-language words given by inspiration of God to the prophets and apostles. When statements/assertions made by KJV-only authors are applied consistently, soundly, and justly, they would become a serious and major problem for a modern, man-made KJV-only theory.

Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations. Bob Kendall observed: “Every language has its own unique grammar, its own unique way of placing words in a sentence” (How Firm, p. 53). William D. Mounce noted: “There is not a one-to-one correspondence between languages, and this applies especially to vocabulary” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 199). Dave Brunn asserted: “Ancient Hebrew and New Testament Greek contain grammatical features that do not exist in English” (One Bible, p. 86). Dave Brunn pointed out: “Many features of Hebrew and Greek are impossible to produce in the English language” (p. 185). Hugo Schonhaar noted: “There are constraints with language that do not allow for 100% literal translation” (Woods, King’s Bible, p. 271). D. A. Waite maintained that “it is impossible to bring over into English all of the nuances of the original Words” (Critical Answer, p. 41).

D. A. Waite wrote: “How can English be a perfect representation of the autographs when they were written in Hebrew and Greek? The English can’t represent Hebrew perfectly and the English can’t represent Greek perfectly because it is a translation. Translations are not the same as the original Words of the text (Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic)” (Central Seminary Refuted, p. 77).

 

It was not mere opinion.

Robert Young's assertion would have been based on his having translated an edition of the Textus Receptus into English, thus seeing or checking out how many definite articles are found in the Greek NT text. Since he said "about 2,000", it may suggest that he could be rounding his count off.

 

In at least some places another English Bible may provide a rendering in English for an original-language word where the KJV does not have one in its text although it sometimes gave one in its 1611 marginal note.

1 Kings 13:33

but turned back, and made [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
but made again [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. returned and made”]
and turneth back, and maketh [YLT]
but turned again, and made [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

1 Kings 16:12

by the hand of Jehu the Prophet [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Jehu the prophet [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Jehu the prophet [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

1 Kings 17:16

by the hand of Elia [1540 Great Bible]
by the hand of Eliah [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the hand of Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Elijah [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 8:9
in his hand [1560 Geneva Bible]
with him [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. in his hand”]
in his hand [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 9:36

by the hand of his servant [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of his servant [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 10:10

by the hand of his servant Elias [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by his servant Elijah [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of His servant Elijah [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

It has been verified by the KJV translators themselves as they acknowledged in their 1611 marginal notes some places where they provided no English rendering for an original language word of Scripture.

It can also be verified by a comparison of the KJV to the original-language texts from which it was translated.

 

Steve Combs acknowledged that “languages differ in their use of articles and conjunctions” (Practical Theology, p. 103). William Mounce noted: “Greek can use conjunctions differently than we do in English” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 82). Mounce added: “Almost every sentence in Greek narrative begins with a conjunction” (Ibid.). KJV-only author Kirk DiVietro claimed: “The conjunction does not always need to be translated into English. This is a matter of translator’s discretion and not textual reading” (Where the KJB Leaves the Greek Text, p. 13). Concerning Genesis 5:17; 5:20; 5:25, and Exodus 38:28, Alan Macgregor acknowledged that “the AV omits the conjunction ‘and’ where its use in Hebrew was superfluous in Elizabethan English” (400 Years On, p. 276).

E. W. Bullinger maintained that when the Greek, kai, is used to mean also that “in 60 places (in the A.V.) it is not translated at all” (Figures of Speech, p. 90). At Romans 5:19, TR advocate Charles Surrett asserted that “’also’ is omitted in KJV, but in NKJV and Greek” (Certainty of the Words, p. 117).

Kirk DiVietro also declared: “The article does not always need to be translated into English. This is a matter of translator’s discretion and not textual reading” (Where the KJB Leaves the Greek Text, p. 15). Dave Brunn noted: “Greek often uses the definite article the in places where it cannot be translated literally into English” (One Bible, p. 91). William Mounce observed: “Greek uses the article when English does not, such as with proper names,” and “other times Greek doesn’t use the article when English requires it” (Greek for the Rest of Us, p. 96).

 

Micah 7:3

the corruption of his soul [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
his mischievous desire [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. the mischiefs of the soul”]
the mischief of his soul [YLT]
the lust of his soul [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Zephaniah 1:2

from off the land [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. the face of the land”]
from the face of the ground [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]
From the face of the land [NKJV]

Haggai 1:1

by the ministry of the Prophet Haggai [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the ministry of the prophet Aggeus [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Haggai [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Haggai”]
by the hand of Haggai [YLT]


Haggai 2:1

by the ministry of the prophet Haggai [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the ministry of the prophet Aggeus [1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by the prophet Haggai [1611 KJV] [1611 margin--“Heb. by the hand of”]
by the hand of Haggai the prophet [YLT]

Zechariah 7:2

to pray before the LORD [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. to intreat the face of the Lord”]
to appease the face of Jehovah [YLT]
to seek the favor of the face of Jehovah [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Zechariah 7:7

by the ministry of the former prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the former prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. by the hand of”]
by the hand of the former prophets [YLT]

Zechariah 7:12

by the ministry of the former prophets [1560 Geneva Bible]
by the former prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. by the hand of”]
by the hand of the former prophets {YLT]

Malachi 1:1

by the ministry of Malachi [1560 Geneva Bible; 1602 Bishops’ Bible]
by Malachi [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Malachi”]
by the hand of Malachi [YLT] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

I stated: Every exact inspired original-language word of Scripture, every part of speech of every original-language word, every jot and tittle of every inspired original-language word, and every feature or aspect of the original-language Scriptures are not actually preserved exactly or identically the same in Bible translations.

Those who attempt to claim or suggest that the KJV preserves every one of God's words do not attest to that fact.

They seem to try to mislead and deceive others into believing claims that are not true.

Do those who suggest that the KJV is the preserved words of God attest to that fact?

 

Matthew 2:4

where Christ [1611 KJV]
where the Christ [YLT] [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Luke 4:41

Thou art the Christ [1560 Geneva Bible] [YLT]
Thou art that Christ [1568 Bishops’ Bible]
Thou art Christ [1611 KJV]
You are the Christ [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Luke 7:20

John Baptist [1611 KJV]
John the Baptist [YLT] [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Luke 23:39

If thou be the Christ [1560 Geneva Bible] [YLT]
If thou be Christ [1611 KJV]
If You are the Christ [NKJV] [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]