KJV-Onlyism Commentary

Will Kinney does a pretty nice job laying things out. At least he discusses issues and doesn't throw up his hands and yell "ye of no faith" when his arguments are challenged!

I still see several problems with the idea that we can see the KJB as word for word inspired.

1. As we all know even the revisonss of the KJB ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT!!! I'll agree that the differences are very minor - but they ARE DIFFERENCES!!! Either the KJB is a fixed, immutable, word for word inspired bible or it isn't. An the revisions establish that it is not (different is not the same!!).

2. The Greek texts underlying the KJB changed slightly from edition to edition (before 1611) - with Erasmus' first text containing some of his own back-translation from Latin!!

3. Psalm 12:6 more likely refers to the preservation of PEOPLE and not WORDS - but this is a difficult one since the translation from the BHS could be made either way.

In summary how are we to believe the claims that the KJB should be seen as perfectly preserved? Slightly different does NOT equal same!!!!

A good translation, yes. A God-favored translation, yes. A translation suitable for settlement of all scriptural disputes within a church, yes. But exclusively the only possible English word of God, no.

 

See, it FEELS like the ONLY Bible I've ever known or used is being attacked.
END QUOTE.

Your absolutely correct Granny Gumbo. Your bible "is" under attack and the very ones attacking it can't even see how they are being manipulated by the same old adversary way back in Gen 3.

 

steaver said "It appears you guys are hopeless in this issue. I never seen anyone totally close their minds to the truth as you have!"

That's what my Mormon friend tells me too. We are not to open our minds to any and every belief that comes along. In matters of faith and practice, such as the idea that any particular version is inerrant and exclusive, we need only accept it if there is a valid authority promoting that doctrine. What authority is there for accepting KJV-onlyism?

artbook1611 said "God "inspired" the originals which were flawless and He also has "preserved" His word flawless right to this present day and forever. Therefore it is somewhere today still in a flawless form."

Then they were preserved in flawless form in 1610, and the KJV was not only unneeded by in error for deviated from that flawlessly preserved Bible of 1610.

artbook1611 said "our absolutely correct Granny Gumbo. Your bible "is" under attack"

No, it isn't. What is under attack is an unbiblical, non-authoritative doctrine about that Bible.

 

our absolutely correct Granny Gumbo

Why thank-you, natters; it's so nice to be told that!

 

Hello Granny, the Gerber Baby, Gumbo! Long time no speak!

I'm glad you chimed in on this thread. At the risk of embarrassing you, I want to use you as an example.

Unbeknownst to most, if not all, the participants of this forum, you and I have always had an extremely congenial relationship. You wrote me when my boy was born, I sent you a picture of him, we've exchanged several pleasantries over the years (literally better than two years now) that we've been aquainted. We sign our letters and PMs with "your servant," or "see you here, there, or in the air" or some acknowledgement of the kinship we have in Christ. We trust each other to pray for one another. We do all of these things that are backed by Scripture.

Now, do we do them because we look up the verses each time we correspond? Of course not. You and I are in a situation like Timothy where we have "known" the Scriptures since we were children. Our relationship is rooted in the bond we share as members of the same Body, the corporate Christ on earth.

Sure, we could easily back these actions with Passages such as John 13:44-45 or Romans 13:8. We could even go back to the Old Testament to Leviticus 19:18 to back our actions. But there is no need for that, is there? Of course not! It is a natural part of our Christian character rooted in God's love for us and revealed and confirmed in the Scriptures.

Can you imagine the absurdity, the absolute madness, of us breaking fellowship because we can't agree on whether it was day four or day seven that Samson's wife approached him? Look at some of the other imperatives Paul gave Timothy in the two Epistles he wrote to him and apply them to this nonsensical debate. I'll link you to a site with two side by side versions. It's clear what was going on in Timothy's church in either column:

1 Timothy 1:3-7

1 Timothy 6:3-5

2 Timothy 1:5-7

2 Timothy 2:14-15

If someone really needs to know the end results of the inspiration of Scripture, Psalm 119:11, 34, 112 and Jeremiah 31:31-34 will tell them.

I'm not attacking "your Bible," Sister Gumbo (if that IS your real name ), I'm defending "our Bible"!

See ya round the board!

 

Hi Charles, thank you for your comments.

You said: "I still see several problems with the idea that we can see the KJB as word for word inspired.

1. As we all know even the revisonss of the KJB ARE SLIGHTLY DIFFERENT!!! I'll agree that the differences are very minor - but they ARE DIFFERENCES!!! Either the KJB is a fixed, immutable, word for word inspired bible or it isn't. An the revisions establish that it is not (different is not the same!!).

Hi Charles, I will address this one last.


2. The Greek texts underlying the KJB changed slightly from edition to edition (before 1611) - with Erasmus' first text containing some of his own back-translation from Latin!!

The first part is true. But, only God can sort out the textual mess and give us what He originally said. Aren't the conflicting scholars who put together the ever changing new versions attempting to do the same thing? However, they are failing miserably and the "science" of textual criticism is a pathetic joke.

The Bible believer first looks to God who promised to preserve His inspired words. For multiple reasons, many thousands of us believe God has done this in the King James Bible.

3. Psalm 12:6 more likely refers to the preservation of PEOPLE and not WORDS - but this is a difficult one since the translation from the BHS could be made either way.

Thank you for at least admitting that the preservation of WORDS is one possible meaning. I, of course, believe God has promised to preserve His wordS, not just a general, mixed up and contradictory message of kinda, sorta what He may or may not have said.


Charles>>>In summary how are we to believe the claims that the KJB should be seen as perfectly preserved? Slightly different does NOT equal same!!!!

OK, now, in answer to this common one brought up about those printing errors, here goes. This is from something I wrote in answer to Rick Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures. It directly applies.


Printign Errers and Spellin

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Mr. Norris brings up the issue of the various editions of the King James Bible and shows how they differ from one another. Anyone who has studied the Bible version issue for some time knows that printing errors have been made in the past and some still exist today when we compare the Cambridge King James edition with the Oxford edition.

Among the examples Mr. Norris lists are changes from "LORD" to "Lord"; "seek good" Psalm 69:32 - a clear printing error of one letter quickly changed to the correct "seek God", which is what the Hebrew text says; omitting "Amen" at the end of Ephesians to putting it in again, and examples like one KJB spelling as "enquire" while another spells it "inquire".

Throughout the history of Bible printing there have been some rather humorous examples of printing errors that have occurred. It should also be noted that there have been printing errors, even with today's advanced technology, in the NASB, NKJV, and NIV as well. Here are a few of the printing errors that have occurred in various King James Bible editions.

A 1631 edition became known as the "Wicked Bible" because the seventh commandment read, "thou shalt commit adultery." The printer was fined 300 pounds.

The printer of the "Fool Bible" had to pay 3,000 pounds for this mistake in Psalm 14:1: "The fool hath said in his heart there is a God."

In 1653, there was a misprint in I Corinthians 6:9 that read, "Know ye not that the unrighteous shall inherit the kingdom of God" and one in Romans 6:13 that read, "Neither yield ye your members as instruments of righteousness unto sin." This Bible became known as "the Unrighteous Bible."

In 1716, the "Sin On Bible" commanded, "Go, and sin on more" in John 8:11.

In 1717, there was a misprint in a heading for the "parable of the vineyard" which called it the "Parable of the vinegar." This Bible was called "the Vinegar Bible."

In 1801, Jude 16 stated, "these are murderers" instead of "murmurers", and Mark 7:27 stated, "let the children first be killed" instead of "filled." This Bible was nicknamed "the Murderers Bible."

In 1820 a KJB edition was printed that had Jesus saying, "Who hath ears to ear, let him hear" in Matthew 13:43, and this was called "the Ears to Ear" Bible.

In 1823 another KJB printing had Genesis 24:61 read "Rebekah arose, and her camels", instead of "her damsels," in "Rebekah's Camels Bible."

The cause for all of these defects may be found in "the Printers' Bible" (1702), which states in Psalm 119:161, "printers have persecuted me" (instead of "princes" have persecuted me). If ever there was a misprint that carried a lot of irony, this is it. "Printers have persecuted me."

Three of the "big examples" that men like Mr. Norris and Doug Kutilek often bring up are Ruth 3:15, Song of Solomon 2:7, and Jeremiah 34:16.

Mr. Norris' friend, Doug Kutilek says: "It should be unnecessary to say much about variations which have always existed among various printings and editions of the KJV. They do exist, and have from the beginning (the two editions printed in 1611 differ in over 2,000 places, perhaps the most famous being "he" or "she" at Ruth 3:15)."

To address the example Mr. Kutilek gives us in Ruth 3:15, let's look at what happened. The Cambridge edition, which I use, says: "Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and SHE went into the city."

There was a discrepancy between the edition published in 1611 and the one published in 1613. In the original 1611 edition Ruth 3:15 read, "and HE went into the city", which would refer to Boaz. In the 1613 edition, this printing error of one letter was caught and changed to the correct reading of "and SHE went into the city", which refers to Ruth. These two editions became known as "the Great He Bible" and "the Great She Bible", respectively. The simple fact is they BOTH went into the city as we see from reading the rest of the chapter.

There still are differences among the many versions even today in Ruth 3:15.

Among the versions that read: "And HE went into the city" are the NIV, Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Young's, the Jewish 1917 translation, World English Bible, New Living Translation, and the New Revised Standard Version.

The versions that read: "And SHE went into the city" are the King James Bible, NKJV, NASB, Revised Standard Version, Coverdale, Bishop's, Douay, Bible in Basic English, Geneva bible, 1936 Jewish translation, and the 2001 English Standard Version. Notice in the case of the RSV, NRSV, and ESV, each of which is a revision of the other, that the RSV went with "he", then the NRSV read "she", and the latest ESV has now gone back to "he" again. Also observe that the two Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936 differ from one another.

The NKJV, which reads "SHE went into the city" as do the King James Bible and the NASB, has a footnote which says: "Masoretic text reads HE; some Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read SHE" - as do the NIV, RV, ASV, NRSV.

Additionally, I know of two places where the King James Bible Cambridge edition differs from the Oxford KJB edition still today. One is in Jeremiah 34:16 where the Cambridge KJB reads: "whom YE had set at liberty" while the Oxford edition says: "whom HE had set at liberty".

The second is found in the Song of Solomon 2:9 where the Cambridge KJB edition says: "that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please", while the Oxford KJB says "nor awake my love, till SHE please." Mr. Norris also mentions these two in his book.

Song of Solomon 2:7

Song of Solomon 2:7 "O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till HE please."

In the original AV 1611 a printer's error occured and it read: "till SHE please". It was soon discovered and changed to read as it stands today in both the Oxford and Cambridge editions - "till HE please".

Here is how other Bible versions render this verse.

"till IT please" - Revised Version, NIV, NKJV

"till SHE please" - NASB, Geneva Bible

"till HE please" - American Standard Version 1901, Jewish translation 1917, King James Bible (Oxford and Cambridge editions)

Jeremiah 34:16

Jeremiah 34:16 "But ye turned and polluted my name, and caused every man his servant, and every man his handmaid, whom YE had set at liberty at their pleasure, to return, and brought them into subjection..."

The original 1611 said "YE" as does the Cambridge edition today, but the Oxford KJB edition says "whom HE had set at liberty". Again, it makes perfect sense in the context and is a minor printing error that has not yet been corrected in some editions of the King James Bible.

Other Bible Versions in Jeremiah 34:16

"whom YE (or YOU) had set at liberty" - ASV, RV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NRSV, 1917 Jewish translation put out by Jewish Publication Society.

"whom HE had set at liberty" - NKJV, Youngs, 1936 Jewish translation put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York. Notice that both Jewish translations differ again between themselves and the NKJV sides with the Oxford edition.

Mr. Norris and Mr. Kutilek are all worked up about a little printing error they think they have found in the King James Bible, and they recommend we abandon this old relic to the dustbin and take up the modern versions, yet the Modern Versions continue to disagree even with each other in these minor examples. I firmly believe they are straining at gnats and swallowing a camel in the process.

On the other hand, there are huge differences that exist among the various bible versions, with literally thousands of words found in some but not in others, and hundreds of verses which have very different meanings in them, yet those who attack the King James Bible come up with examples like Ruth 3:15 and Jeremiah 34:16 where no doctrine is affected and it is nothing more than a simple printing error. It seems they think that if they can manage to find just one little "error" in the King James Bible, then their case for "No translation is the inspired word of God" can be made and the door is then wide open for the flood of conflicting and contradictory bible versions to come pouring in.

This whole "Printing Error" complaint the biblical relativists bring up, is really a non-issue. What I mean by this is that if every single copy of the King James Bible that has ever come off the presses read exactly the same with no minor printing errors found in any of them, it still would not change their opinion that the KJB is not the inspired, inerrant word of God. It is brought up as a smokescreen; not as a serious issue concerning the truth of Scripture and its preservation.

Most people who reject the King James Bible as being the inerrant, preserved words of God in English, do so for other reasons than printing errors. They have done so because they went to a seminary where they were taught that no Bible in any language and no text, be it Hebrew or Greek, is the inspired words of God. Or they visited some anti-KJV only website where they were told something like: "The KJV is not based on the best manuscripts", or that "God forbid" is wrong, or "1 John 5:7 does not belong in the Bible."

They previously assumed that all King James Bibles read the same since the very beginning. It wasn't till later they learned of the minor printing errors and now they gleefully toss this up as a dodge and a pretext. If someone is convinced the KJB is not the inspired word of God, no matter if all copies in its long history read exactly the same, his mind would not be changed by this fact. It is a non-issue of no importance.

For a more detailed study, read What About Those Printing Errors?.

If one adopts the view that printing errors negate any Bible version, Hebrew or Greek text from being valid and true, then you end up with no inspired, inerrant Bible anywhere on this earth. This is the only logical conclusion to their argument. Guess who wants you to think this way?

God has preserved His inerrant words Providentially, not miraculously. He did not keep every copyist from making "printing errors", but He guided in such a way as to purify the text and bring it back to its original form and meaning.

The King James Bible we have today is the same as the one printed in 1611. Printing errors have occured and continue to occur from time to time, but the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie the King James Bible have not changed in the least.

Even the American Bible Society, which promotes and publishes most modern bible versions, wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).

I hope this helps you to better understand the nature of the so called "thousands of changes" that have occured in the King James Bible since 1611 to the present.

Will Kinney

 

Will,

Well you did your homework for that one! I'd agree that all the changes made in the KJB are very minor indeed. But to me even the small changes are a little problematic for a bible that is to have been PERFECTLY and INERRANTLY preserved. I mean - is it or is it not 100% inerrant?

Let me say that if Paul had written Elizabethan English and the oldest KJ type manuscripts dated to 80 AD I'd be right there with you as KJVO! But there were manuscripts upon manuscripts, even in the Byzantine tradition. Then there was the Vulgate. And then there were Greek manuscripts again. And all of a sudden 1611 we get God's perfect word.

It seems clear to me (and this is the point where we'll likely strongly disagree) that God did NOT preserve His word in exact language. It would be nice if He had done so, but He didn't. Like Jeremiah said the word is written in the heart. I have a hard time thinking that any human language can really claim to 100% contain God's eternal word - Hebrew, English, Greek or otherwise.

Thus I don't have a problem with the differences between the KJV and MVs.

 

Yes, I suppose it is! But after interacting with the crowd of KJVOs who retort with, "you can't see the obvious because you're blinded by Satan" I'll take a "normal" KJVO anyday!!

 

So Clint, have you asked God for wisdom in this issue, and did He give you wisdom in this matter before you decided there is no inspired Word for us to read today?

"In all likelihood". So it is just your opinion that he never saw any inspired scriptures? You can contend all you like that only the originals were inspired but that doesn't prove anything accept what you believe!

I don't know Clint, It seems sadd to me that a Christian could teach others that there is no such thing as an inspired word of God for us to read today. I don't know how you convince souls to believe with that theology.

Let me ask you a question. The bible I read declares that homosexuality is a sin and abomination in any form. I believe that because I believe the bible I read is the pure word of the Lord and that means "inspired", straight from God, just as if He is speaking directly to me.

If I believe as you do, that the bible you read is not inspired and perfect, but could have errors and in fact does, in fact believe none of it is inspired as though God is speaking directly to you, then how do I know that these verses which speak about these things are not the product of some conspiracy against homosexuality?

Maybe it was added, afterall we do not know what the originals actually said. Do you know if the originals actually condemned homosexuality? Maybe they just meant those who abuse their homo relationships, just like hetros do. Can we be sure it is condemned? Not 99.9% sure it is, but 100% sure? Without the original writing, how can we be 100% sure?

God Bless!

 

natters,

You speak about your mormon friend. How do you attempt to convince him his doctrine is wrong? Their final authority is the Book of Mormon. This book overrides the KJB they claim to use as well. How do you go about convincing him he is in error for following the false prophet Joseph Smith?

God Bless!

 

I have no desire to discuss the nature of my private prayer:

Matthew 6
6 But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly.

I will however tell you that I pray weekly that God's Will and Purpose will be revealed to me through the study of the Scriptures.

"In all likelihood". So it is just your opinion that he never saw any inspired scriptures? You can contend all you like that only the originals were inspired but that doesn't prove anything accept what you believe! </font>[/QUOTE]Once again,

2 Peter 1:21 For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost.

It's more than opinion. If you have a different exposition of this Passage that shows that inspiration is renewed in the "new time", or in 1611, or in 1769, etc., please provide it.

Homosexuality? Try any reliable translation of Romans 1. Here's a side by side with the NIV and KJV for your review.

Romans 1:26-27

Even the NLT, a dynamic equivalent translation, is more explicit on the matter:

http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Romans+1%3A26-27&NLT_version=yes&language=english&x=14&y=9

Just because versions are not inspired does not mean that they have not preserved the word of God. You're reading too much into the position.

 

Jason,

God love ya for your ministry and preaching of the Gospel of Jesus Christ.

But I believe you are on the wrong side of this version issue and brother Will is going to be your worst nightmare whilst trying to convince folks that the KJB is with errors.

Will is unlike any KJB defender I have ever come accross. I know a little about the issue but do not spend alot of time trying to convince folks about it. We all have a gift from God, a ministry which He wants us to fullfill, and KJB defending is not mine. But Will has been given a passion about this and in IMHO has a ligetiment defense for every dart I ever seen thrown at the KJB.

If you continue to debate him, I hope you consider the extensive time, research and study Will has devoted to this issue. You will not stump him nor confuse him. He will not relent and go away. He will only continue to prove time and time again that the KJB is always correct. One must want the truth before they can ever begin to see the truth.

This debate is doing the KJB a great service. The longer it goes on the stronger the KJB becomes. Just like curing concrete. Harder and harder as time goes by.

God Bless you Jason!

 

Clint, you quick to scold one for not keeping verses in context. You quote Matthew 6:6 as a reason for you having no desire to tell me if you asked God about bible versions. I didn't ask you to pray in public so you would be looked upon as religious. Isn't that the context of Matthew 6:6 ? You cannot tella brother in Chrsit if you asked God for wisdom on the version issue?

Well how do I know these translations are trustworthy? None of them know what the original scriptures said 100% for sure, right?

God Bless!

 

Clint, you originally posted a list by Jack Lewis of the niv committee showing some "archaic" words.

You then say: "The difference is, of course, between the list I presented and the list you have presented is that by and far the majority of the words in Jack Lewis' list are completely archaic."

Clint, Jack Lewis is a total hypocrite. I will gladly show exactly why if you wish.

Anyway, the list you first gave had mispelled words in it that are not in the KJB, and most high schoolers would totally fail the vocab list I gave you from the NIV.

So what if there are some archaic words in the King James Bible? So much the better.

Consider the following.

The Old-fashioned Language of the King James Bible


A Christian lady told me about a home for retarded children here in the U.S. They tried using one of the modern bible versions for their school plays about the birth of the Saviour and His resurrection, but the kids could not remember their lines. Then they went back to the KJB and the kids recited their lines with no difficulty. The King James Bible is much easier to memorize and its words stick in the mind precisely because of the way it is written.

I will only briefly mention the textual issue in this article; there are many places to find out more about that. All Bibles are not translated from the same Greek and Hebrew texts. The NIV, ESV, Holman Christian Standard, and the NASB use a different Greek text than the KJB; they don’t always agree with each other; and their Greek text differs from the KJB text by about 5000 words. There are 17 entire verses missing in the NIV new testament.

Scores of times the NIV, ESV, Holman, and the NASB do not follow the Hebrew text, but use the Greek Septuagint, Syriac, or some other source. I have found at least 40 examples where the NKJV does not follow the same Greek text as the KJB, and is different still from the NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB. None of these translations have the same meaning as the others in hundreds of verses. Which one then is God’s infallible word? I’m convinced it is the King James Bible.

There is an book called, “Archaic Words and the Authorized Version”, by Laurence M. Vance. In it Mr. Vance shows how most of the so-called archaic words in the KJB are not archaic at all but are found in modern magazines, newspapers, and dictionaries. There are only about 200 words usually picked out by critics of the KJB, yet of the approximately 800,000 words in the Bible this is only .004 % of the total.

He also shows many examples of words in the modern versions which most people would have to look up in a dictionary.


There is a huge battle going on today about the Bible. We are headed for the falling away, the apostacy, which will occur before the coming of our Lord Jesus Christ in glory and judgement. This is the most biblically ignorant generation of Americans ever, in spite of, or perhaps, BECAUSE OF the modern versions.

The explosion of multiple-choice, conflicting modern versions has encouraged the student to pick and choose his own preferred readings and has created a tendency to treat every Bible lightly and to look upon none as the final words of God.

I believe the KJB to be God’s preserved, complete, pure, and inspired words. If I have to choose between a modern, up-to-date language Bible version that omits thousands of God inspired words from the New Testament (as do the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman), that rejects the Hebrew readings in numerous places, and that teaches false doctrine in several verses, or choose the old King James Bible that has a few "archaic words" but teaches the whole truth of God in purity of doctrine, it is a no-brainer. I will gladly and thankfully take the Holy Bible that God has set His mark of approval on like no other - the King James Bible. If you don’t have one, get it, read it, believe it, memorize it and hid its words in your heart.

The Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”

The Bible itself is not meant to be a book which can be easily understood. Who can read through the minor prophets and not ask himself: "What is he talking about? What does this mean?" Yet there are many parts of the Bible that even a child can comprehend.

I do not believe the Bible is supposed to be translated into contemporary street language. The English of the KJB 1611 was not written in "street language" even at that time.

Let's check with Oxford University for some stats:

William Shakespear used a total vocabulary of just over 24,000 words. In 2003 16,000 of those words are "obsolete".

Edgar Allen Poe used a total vocabulary of under 18,000 words. In 2003 9,550 of those words are "obsolete".

The King James Bible contains a total vocabulary of just over 6,000 words. In 2003 approximately 8 of those words are "obsolete".

Look at the divine pattern through history. We believe the Hebrew Old Testament was inspired by God. Yet the Jewish people in Israel today do not speak in the same Hebrew as is found in their scriptures, but they understand it. Not one of them would even consider "updating" the Hebrew text.

Most Bible critics I meet tell us we need to "go to the Hebrew and the Greek" to find out what God really said. This is so ironic. If we find a few old "archaic words" in the King James Bible that are hard to understand, they recommend instead that we learn Hebrew and Greek! Now, that makes a lot of sense, doesn't it? Besides this, all of the translators behind such versions as the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted or even lost in numerous places, so they reject these readings. Yet, even if we followed the Hebrew and Greek texts, we would then be learning hundreds and hundreds of "archaic words", because the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts do not read as do modern Greek and Hebrew!

The same is true of the Greek Orthodox church. The Greek New Testament is not written in the same Greek that is spoken today in Greece, yet they understand it. None of those who believe it to be God's words are clamoring for a modern, up to date, "comic book" version.

God knew beforehand that languages would change and I believe He intended that His word would be placed in a form of language that would be different from that spoken on the street. God's Book is not supposed to read like people on the street talk. It never did.

The King James Bible reads differently from any other book. It is not like a newspaper, nor is it meant to sound like one. The Bible is an ancient book filled with timeless wisdom. I am impressed by the fact that this King James Bible has been around for a long time; it reads differently than any other book; it speaks like no man does in the pulpit, on radio or television, and I have to think about what it is saying. I don't just breeze through it like a tabloid magazine. When I slow down to think about what it says, I find that God speaks to me.

There seem to be two attitudes towards the KJB - those who want to understand it and defend it, and those who want to criticize and attack it.

To illustrate some of the confusion being wrought today by the conflicting "bibles" let me give you a few examples from the modern versions. In Job 42:6 the KJB along with the RV, ASV, NKJV, NIV, and ESV says: “Wherefore I ABHOR MYSELF and repent in dust and ashes”. The NASB says, “Therefore I RETRACT, and I repent in dust and ashes.” The Holman CSB says: "Therefore I TAKE BACK MY WORDS, and repent..." There is a big difference between abhoring myself and "taking back what I said".

In Exodus 26:14, “Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins". The NKJV, Geneva, Darby, Young’s, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB has "PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "SEA COWS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS". The Holman says: "MANATEE SKINS". In the wilderness, badger's skins would be a difficult to come by, but how many porpoises (NASB) or sea cows (NIV) , or manatees (Holman) do you think they could have scrounged up?

In Exodus 14:25, The LORD troubled the host of the pursuing Egyptians and "TOOK OFF" their chariot wheels. The RV, ASV, NIV, NKJV all equal the KJB, but the NASB and Holman tells us, "He caused the chariot wheels TO SWERVE". My car wheels have at times swerved but they didn't come off. Not quite the same meaning, is it? The RSV and ESV say: "CLOGGING their chariot wheels" with a footnote that tells us "clogging" comes from the LXX and the Syriac, but the Hebrew says "removing", like the KJB has.

In Deut. 33:25, "As thy days, so shall thy STRENGTH be." No matter what difficulties I may encounter, God will give me the strength to bear them and to go on. The NIV, NKJV, ASV, Geneva, Youngs, Holman, and Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NASB has: "And according to your days, so shall YOUR LEISURELY WALK be." Did God ever promise us a leisurely walk? Not if I read the rest of the Bible, He didn't.

Is there a difference between an eagle and a vulture? In Matt. 24:28, "For wheresoever the carcass is, there will the EAGLES be gathered together." The RV, ASV, NKJV, Darby, Young, RSV, and Spanish all agree with the KJB. The NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB have "vultures", yet it is a quote from Job 39:27-30 where it refers to eagles, even in the NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB! The NIV, ESV, Holman, and NASB translate this same word as eagles in Rev. 4:7 and 12:14.

If someone said our national bird were the vulture, I think Americans would be a little upset; yet the NIV, Holman, ESV, and NASB think nothing of changing the eternal word of God, and few Christians seem to mind at all.

In Psalm 63:10 it says, "They shall be a portion for FOXES". This is the reading in the RV, ASV, Geneva, Young's, Darby, Douay, and the NASB However the NKJV, Holman, and NIV have "jackals". This word is found 7 times in Hebrew and always translated as foxes by the KJB and NASB, yet the NKJV has foxes (as in Samson catching 300 of them) 6 times, but only here changed it to jackals. The NIV has foxes 4 times and jackals 3 times.

In 1 Kings 12:11 it says, "I will chastise you with SCORPIONS." The NASB, ESV and NIV agree with the KJB, but only the NKJV has "SCOURGES" here and even a footnote telling us it is literally "scorpions", while correctly translating it as scorpions in other passages. The Holman says: "I will discipline you with BARBED WHIPS" - Then it footnotes: Literally - scorpions.

Matthew 12:40 "For as Jonas was three days and three nights in the WHALE'S belly: so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth."

The word correctly translated as "Whale" is ketos. I have a modern Greek dictionary. It has nothing whatsoever to do with the Bible; it is just a Greek/English dictionary. If you look up ketos it simply says whale. If you look up whale, it says ketos.

In Websters dictionary 1999 edition, there are two Englsih words listed which come from this Greek word ketos. Cetus is the constellation of the Whale. Cetology is the branch of zoology dealing with whales and dolphins. These are both English words derived from ketos. This word occurs only one time in the New Testament. The word is not "fish" which is ixthus.

Jonah 1:17 refers to a great fish. The whale, though technically a mammal, has a fishlike body, and the word fish is defined loosely as including any aquatic animal with a fishlike body. This "scientific" classification was unknown in the days of Jonah and of Jesus, and is really of little relevance. Most people even today, when they see a whale, think Wow is that a big fish! Until some pedantic type says No, that's a mammal.

God Himself has His own "scientific classifications" as listed in 1 Corinthians 15:39. "All flesh is not the same flesh: but there is one kind of flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, and another of birds."

Perhaps in an attempt to appear scientific rather than correctly translating what the word really means, the NKJV and Holman have "the great fish", the NIV has "the huge fish" while the NASB has "the sea monster"!

Bible versions that have correctly translated this word as WHALE are the Revised Version, the ASV of 1901, Tyndale, Geneva, Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Italian Diodati, the St. Joseph's New American Bible of 1970, and the RSV of 1952. What big fish would have swallowed Jonah except a whale? Or was it the NASB's SEA MONSTER? Again, the KJB is correct and the NKJV, Holman, NIV and NASB are not.

Those who don't believe any Bible, and more particularly the KJB, is the inspired word of God, frequently criticize the KJB for using words like "to let, prevent, suffer, and conversation". This is a bait and switch tactic, a smokescreen, and a poor excuse to get us to switch to a modern bible version which differs from the KJB both in text and meaning in hundreds of verses.

The verb "to let" is used in three ways in the KJB. "Let them alone, they be blind leaders of the blind." "planted a vineyard. . .and let it out to husbandmen." The third example is the archaic use of to let meaning to withhold or to hinder.

There are still traces of this meaning today. Webster’s defines the noun "a let" as an obstacle, a hindrance, or a delay. In tennis if a ball hits the net, it is called a let ball. In 2 Thessalonians 2:6-7, "And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth, will let, until he be taken out of the way."

Not only does the KJB use the word "let" in the sense of to hinder or withhold, but so also do Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599 has "will let" in the second part of the verse. Even the Revised Version uses "to let" in this sense in Isaiah 43:13.

What I mean by bait and switch is the new versions say in effect "Let us clear up the confusion of the KJB and give you a modern rendering." But look at the NKJV, NIV, and NAS. They have updated the word "let" but all three have introduced a private interpretation into the passage by capitalizing certain words and not others (NKJV and NAS), or by adding words not found in any text (NIV).

The NKJV says, "And now you know what is restraining, that he may be revealed in his own time. For the mystery of lawlessness is already at work; only He who now restrains will do so until He is taken out of the way." Do you see how they have capitalized some of the "He"s and not others? They are forcing you to look at the passage in a certain way to understand its meaning. Yet there is a totally different way of looking at the passage, which is obscured by the new versions.

The NKJV also has changed the meaning of certain phrases in this chapter. Instead of "the day of Christ IS AT HAND" (v. 2) it says: "the day of Christ HAD COME". The NASB, ESV, NIV are worse with "the day of THE LORD has ALREADY COME". This changes the meaning of the passage.

Likewise the NKJV unites with the NASB, NIV, ESV in 2 Thessalonians 3:5 in changing "the Lord direct your hearts...into the patient waiting for Christ." So read the Geneva Bible, Bishop's Bible, Webster, TMB, Bible in Basic English, and even the Living Bible. But the NKJV says: "direct your hearts into the patience of Christ", while the others make this the "steadfastness" or the "perseverance of Christ" or "Christ's endurance" (Holman), rather than the "patient waiting FOR Christ."

The word "to prevent" can have the meaning of to come before, to precede. The Oxford dictionary does not list this meaning as archaic. It is found in the 1936 Jewish translation of the Hebrew Publishing Company, the 1950 Douay Version, and in the Revised Version.

In Amos 9:10 it says, "the evil shall not overtake nor prevent us." The 1950 Douay reads like the KJB in Psalm 119:147-148, "I prevented the dawning of the morning, and cried; I hoped in thy word, Mine eyes prevent the night watches, that I might meditate in thy word."

The word can mean a "pre-event", something that happens before something else, and it is used in this way in 1 Thessalonians 4:15. "For this we say unto you by the word of the Lord, that we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent (precede, come before, a pre-event) them which are asleep."

Even when others criticize this word, they know what it means. It is easy to just explain the meaning of the word in this context, then you understand it, and let it stand as is in the KJB.

The word "suffer" is criticized as being archaic in Matthew 19:14, "But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven."

If you look at a dictionary, the word "suffer", meaning to allow or permit, is not archaic at all. Have we been so dumbed down that we think a word can have only one narrow meaning? The Revised Version, the ASV, Darby, Young’s, Tyndale, Geneva Bible, Third millenium Bible, and the KJV 21st Century versions, all render this word as "suffer to come unto me."

April 2, 2003, a commentator on Fox News, in opposition to the war, stated that, "...it may be incumbent upon us to possibly SUFFER the presence of Saddam Hussein as leader of Iraq in order to maintain a buffer between the Sunnis and Shiites."

The Rocky Mountain News in 2003 said of a politician: "He does not suffer fools gladly, and Washington is full of fools."

Feb. 1989 editorial in the Dayton Daily News, Dayton Ohio, stated that the "...Soviets ESCHEW any and all international presence in ending the Afghan War...". Likewise in 2003 the Rocky Mountain News spoke of a baseball team member who ESCHEWED taking a lower salary", and that was in the Sports section!

Another example of "bait and switch" is the word “conversation”. This word used to mean the manner in which one deals with others in social intercourse and exchange. It is very close to the Greek word used, anastrefo, which means to turn back and forth with others; con-versation is literally to turn back and forth with others. It is now limited only to our speech, but our speech is also a great part of how we conduct ourselves with others. Simply explain the word in its context, and leave it at that.

The bait and switch comes in 2 Cor. 1:12-14, "For our REJOICING is this, the testimony of our conscience, that in simplicity and godly sincerity, not with fleshly wisdom, but by the grace of God, we have had our CONVERSATION in the world, and more abundantly to you-ward . . . we are your REJOICING even as ye also are ours in the day of the Lord Jesus."

But look what the NIV, NKJV, and NAS have done in this section. The NASB says: "For our PROUD CONFIDENCE is this. . .we have conducted ourselves in the world. . .we are your REASON TO BE PROUD as you also are ours, in the day of our Lord Jesus." The NKJV, Holman, and NIV have "boast" instead of "rejoicing"- there is a big difference.

Philippians 2:16 KJB "that I may REJOICE in the day of Christ, that I have not run in vain, neither laboured in vain."

NASB: "in the day of Christ I may have REASON TO GLORY because I did not run in vain"

NIV, Holman CSB : "in order that I MAY BOAST in the day of Christ that I did not run or labor for nothing."

No one will have a reason to be proud or boasting in the day of the Lord Jesus; we will all be flat on our faces! Which is worse, using an old word like conversation and explaining its meaning, or introducing pride as a Christian virtue in the new versions?

If the Bible is our rule and standard for both faith and practice, let's follow its own example for dealing with "archaic " words. In 1 Samuel 9:9, we are told, "(Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to enquire of God, thus he spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a Prophet was beforetime called a Seer)"

You see, God explained the meaning of a word, and then He continues to use the word again and again, once He has explained its meaning. See the verses that follow in 1 Samuel 9:11, and 19.

These are just a few of the many examples I could give, but they will perhaps give you something to think about. All bibles are not the same and God is not the author of confusion. God's message is complete and not contradictory. If I get conflicting messages from the different versions, they can't all be from God. Satan and man are the ones who pervert the Scriptures.

As we get nearer the end, when many shall depart from the faith, the falling away will occur, and men will give heed to doctrines of devils, do you suppose that is the time when the best bibles will be popularly read? When the Son of man cometh, shall he find faith on the earth? Luke 18:8  

If you want to find rest for your soul, peace of mind and confident faith in the words of the living God, read and believe the Holy Bible God has clearly put His mark on as being His infallible words - the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

 

So you see, the modern versions also have many words that are hard to be understood.
Will Kinney
------------------------------------------------------------------------
If they do, it isn't because you illustrated it. The phrase "modern versions" that you used is plural. However, you only referred to one translation in your post. What gives?
Jason


Hi Jason, I get complaints about how long my posts are. One reason they are so long is that I have to give answers to the anticipated objections I always meet with from the Whateverists.

So, to satisfy your curiosity and give you some examples from another modern version, I will now show you how easy to understand some of the words found in the NKJV are, OK?

God bless,

Will K


Words in the New King James Version

Those who criticize the King James Bible as being too hard to understand should consider giving this vocabulary test to their children, or even take it themselves. Try giving a definition of these words and see if you would get a passing score.

The NKJV does not always follow the same Hebrew and Greek texts as the Authorized 1611 King James Bible. It also changes its own wording from one edition to the next. To date there are three different NKJV editions, 1979, 1980, and 1982, all with different wordings. When compared carefully with the old KJB, it is evident that the NKJV has drastically changed the meaning of hundreds of verses, paraphrased many literal readings, introduced several proveable contradictions and perverted several doctrinal issues. Aside from these more important matters, the following list provides many difficult words found in this so called easy to understand version.

You may be able to recognize and define many of these words, though you too would probably fail a vocabulary test, but try giving this list to the average high school student today and see how they do.

The vocabulary of the New King James Version, along with some "helpful hints".

Abase, abashed, abode, adhere, admonish, adversity, aground, algum, alienate, alighting, allays, allotment, alloy, aloof, alms, amend, amiss, annihilated, anise, antitype, arbitrate, apprehended, archives, armlets, ascertain, asps, attire, austere, backbite, banishment, baths (not to get clean), bdellium, befalls, beggarly, begetting, behemoth, belial, beseech, betrothal, beveled, birthstools, bittern, bleat, booty (not modern slang), borne, breach, brandished (not drunk), bray, bristling, buffet (not a restaurant), buckler (not a belt), bulrush, (not a stampede), burnished, butress (not a chair), calamus, caldron, capital (not a city), carcasses, carnally, carrion (not luggage), cassia, caulkers, centurion (not a 100 years), chalcedony, chalkstones, chaste (not pursued by a runner), chasten, (not related to previous chaste), chrysolite, chrysoprase, circumspect, cistern (not feminine of brethren), citadel, citron, clamor, cleft, cloven (not a spice), commission (not money), commonwealth (not shared money), compound (not a barracks), concede , compulsory, conciliation, concubine (not a tractor), congealed, contemptuously, confederacy (not the South), contingents (not same as large land masses), corban, coriander, countenance (not adding up ants), couriers (not an hordourve), covert, crags, crescents, crest (not the top of a hill), cropped (not food), cubit, custodian (not the one who cleans the school halls), curds, dainties (not effeminate), dandled, daubed, dappled, dayspring, denarii, deposed (not relaxing after a foto op), deride (not same as dismount), despoiled (not really, really rotten), diadem, diffuses (not to disarm a bomb), dilapidation (not the act of standing up), dispensation, disrepute, dissipation, diviner (not a grape grower), docile, dragnet (not a detective drama), dregs, drachmas, dropsy (not clumsiness), dross, dryshod, eczema (God bless you), edict, edification, elaborate, embellish, emitted, enigma, enmity, entrails (not a short cut), envoy, eventide, epistle, ephod, exorcise (not jogging), expiration (not a date on a carton of milk), faction, fallow, famish, fare (not average and not money), fatlings (not piglets), feigned (not passed out), festal, fetched, fidelity (not good sound), figurehead (not a statue of a head), filly, flanges, foreskin, fostered, fowlers (not a baseball term), fuller (not less empty), furlongs (not cat tails), gad, garland, garrison, gaunt, gecko, graven, Hellenists, hew (not a man's name), homers (not baseball), hoopoe (not a garden tool), immutability, indignant, insolence, insubordination, intervene, itinerant, jackdaw, jeopardy (a TV show, but what does it mean?), jubilation, kors (not a brand of beer), laden, lamentations, laud (not Boston pronunciation of lard), lusty, mail (not a letter), mammon, matrix (other than the movie), mattock (not a TV lawyer show), mercenaries, mina (not a type of bird), mite (not a bed bug), moorings, nativity, offal (not terrible), offscouring (not dandruff), omnipotent, onager (Job 39:5 - you won't believe this one!) oracle, pangs, papyrus (not a fruit), paramours, parapet(not a dog and a cat), penitents, perdition, phylacteries, pilfering, pillage, pims, pins (not like needles or bowling- has to do with a chariot), pinions (not a type of nut), plaited (not dishes), platitudes, potentate, potsherd, poultice (not chickens), Praetorium (not a place to pray), prattler, principality, prodigal, proconsul, prognosticators (not people who put things off till later), propitiation, pslatery, prow, pulverize, pyre, quadrans, quiver (not to shake), rampart (not a piece of a truck), ravenous, ravished, raze (not to lift up), reconciliation, recount (not to double check your arithmetic), rend, renown, reprisal, retinue, rifled (does not have to do with guns), rivulets, rogue, salute ( does not have to do with the army), satiate, satraps, scruples, sepulcher, shamefaced, shards, Sheol, shod, shuttle (not a type of bus or spaceship), siegeworks, sistrums (not an affectionate term for your sisters), skiff, soothsayer, spelt (not anything to do with spelling words), straits (not the opposite of crookeds), superfluous, supplanted, tamarisk, tares, tarries, temperate, terebinth, terrestrial, tetrarch, throng (not a skimpy bathing suit), timbrel, tittle (not the name of a book), tresses, usury, vagabond, vassal, vehement, vermilion, verdure, verity, vestments, waifs, wane, wanton (not desiring something), warp (not to bend), wend, wield, winebibber, woof (not a dog or stereo), wrought.

So, what's your score? Would you get a passing grade, even with my helpful hints?


Will Kinney

 

Amen Steaver
I 100 % agree with your assessment of Jason Gastrich. He has a great ministry and a massive website and I am sure the gospel of Jesus Christ is well laid out there for all the world to see. I too, wish him well but he cannot win this debate, the Creator of heaven and earth will have the final say and He hath declared that the Bible stands and nothing will set it at nought. For the english speaking people, the KJB is perfection , no matter what the scoffers say about it.
Why do people have such a hard time understanding that our God who inspired His Word can also preserve it as flawlessly as those originals?
This is not rocket science.

 

Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. His character has nothing to do with the validity of the argument, to whit, the KJV uses archaic words. You are engaging in a debating technique known as ad hominem. It doesn't usually work very well on this site.

Really? Which words? I would be interested in abridging the list so that it reflects accurately. One I did catch was "quarternion" should be "quaternion." That makes the meaning FAR more clear! Any others?

Um, how do you think high schoolers would fair on the list of words in the KJV I posted? Further, would they have a dictionary within reach to explain the terms like they would for the NIV list?

I won't even ask for proof of these contentions backed up by actual study in a controlled environment. However, for the sake of argument, assuming the story is true, did the children understand what they memorized? The words of the Bible are not incantations. If one does not absorb the content, they might as well return to Latin Mass.

Interesting. I have a book called The King James Bible Word Book by Ronald Bridges and Luther A. Weigle copyright 1994 by Thomas Nelson Publishing Company in which the publishers say in their preface:

But even as time and history refuse to stand still,so also the living English language refuses to freeze in time. Words and expressions once common become fully obsolete, or they take on new meanings, meanings at times opposite to those of an earlier time. Especially in such cases, the casual reader of today may read a word from the sixteenth century but give to it a twetieth century meaning and think nothing of doing so. The reader's current meaning may still make sense within the sentence, but it will not be the sense intended by the sixtenth century writer. To the extent that this is so, communication breaks down and what the writer wished to say is, in part or in whole, lost.

You and I would probably agree that we believe this statement to be true with all our bowels.

At least they could find them in a dictionary.

Really? Would you mind citing a source on that statistic?

Speaking of "falling away," and seeing as how you mentioned the textual issue earlier, ever read any commentaries on the KJV translators rendition of Hebrews 6:6 and the strong influence of Beza on it? Try Adam Clarke's.

So you have said numerous times. If you say it enough times does it move from "belief" to "fact"?

This statement is just absolutely too ridiculous to even comment on!

Again, I will commend you for admiting that this is a "belief," not a fact.

I agree. However, isn't it odd that the KJV and magazines share so many common words according to Mr. Vance? (Sorry, I couldn't resist that one.)

No, there are many attitudes on the KJV. Understanding its history and the method of composition used by the translators and pointing out substantiated facts is not "attacking." It is seeking the truth rather than blindly following an assertion that it is somehow "inspired" despite its own authors' claims and the evidence of the internal text.

There are, however, four attitudes of people who claim inspiration and infallibility for the KJV. There are those who are incapable of studying it. There are those who refuse to study it. There are those who study it using only the most biased scholarship. And then there are those who study fully but refuse to see the truth about their position because they have venerated a text written and revised by men to the point of deification.

Careful approaching the Book of Job, Mr. Kinney. It can lead to a discussion of the Qere and Ketiv and the margin notes the translators left for those who are willing to read them. The KJV originally contained 8422 such notes throughout the text. Evidently, they weren't "inspired" as the modern publishers leave them out.

See above.

We covered this, didn't we?
Are you listening?

Genesis 2:19
And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.

Such as in Philippians 3:20? It takes more than context for the implications of the word "conversation" whether you care to admit it or not.

At least I'm glad you didn't keep referring to Wycliffe "getting it right" in this composite of your articles like you do in others or you would have had to have justified his use of the Vulgate for his translation.

You sure can eat up the bandwidth, Mr. Kinney.

 

Will J. Kinney

If we assumed, for the sake of argument, that your statistics are valid, then what are we to assume when different sets of your statistics don't match and don't make much sense mathematically (that last quote above seems a stretch). Are there 800,000 or 6,000 words in the KJV? Depending on which it is, your figure of .004 % is not valid. Are there 200 archaic words or are there 8? Does archaic and obselete mean the same thing? Maybe I'm the only one confused.

The differences between the various versions, that you point out, are not nearly so confusing. I think one should expect there would be minor differences between versions. After all, that is why they are called "versions".

If we are to pick only one version ("God forbid") as the standard, your arguments are not convincing that it should necessarily be the KJV. Though, I appreciate your efforts. I pray I am always open to seeking the truth and objectively weighing reasonable arguments.

I think at least one or more of these conflicting versions calls me to do that.

[ September 04, 2004, 01:55 AM: Message edited by: Michael52 ]