Ezekiel 24:7

Good post. One comment:

Well, since the KJV translators didn't live to be over 200 years old, obviously it was other men who made the changes. My question is: by what authority did these other men change/correct the imperfect 1611, and how do we know they did it perfectly (didn't miss any other trouble spots, didn't introduce a problem, etc.)?

But the thing that makes me shake my head in frustration is that the KJV-Onlyists are willing to say both readings are "the word of God", despite being exactly opposite of each other, and yet seem completely unable to wrap their minds around that exact same concept when it comes to comparing a verse between two different versions. Oh well, just another KJV-O double standard, I guess.

 

Supposed Contradiction in 1611 King James Bible
 
Ezekiel 24:7
 
I recently had correspondence with a man who is dealing with the Bible issue in England.  He gave me permission to use the correspondence to help others.  For privacy, his name has been withheld and the text has been slightly edited for readability.
 
The correspondence deals with the question of differences between the King James Bible actually printed in 1611 and the one we have today—specifically with the text of Ezekiel 24:7. 
 
QUESTION:
 
Dear Pastor Reagan, greetings in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. I am sending you this E-Mail as I need some help!!!!
 
A bookshop owner here in England (Michael Penfold of Penfold Book and Bible House) has recently produced a leaflet called "Is the King James Version Perfect?" in which he lists all of the 'errors' in the AV, details the differences between the 1611 and the one we have today and also belittles those of us that hold the AV to be the infallible word of God. A couple of brothers and I are preparing a thorough reply to this leaflet. I believe that if we don't it may do some Bible believers some harm. The Lord helping us we have managed to answer nearly all of the points he raises. However he does make reference to a textual change in Ezekiel 24v7.
 
1611 KJV "she powred it vpon the ground to couer it with dust."
 
Current KJV "she poured it not upon the ground, to cover it with dust."
 
Penfold then asks in light of this, which one is the infallible word of God?
 
I have a copy of your article entitled  The Myth of Early Revisions which has been most helpful. However, with regard to the above, it is obviously a textual change with the reading being opposite.  Albeit I note Dr Scrivener records it as being amended in 1613.
 
Although I have some ideas, I would be grateful if you could please offer some advice on this one as if we can 'nail' this point then we can go back to Mr Penfold and God willing help him to change his mind.
Yours in Christ
 
 
ANSWER from Brother Reagan:
 
Brother H,
 
Thank you for your letter.  I am always interested in the latest attacks on the word of God.  Perhaps you could tell me a little about yourself.  I don't think I have ever corresponded with you before.
 
Pulling out Ezekiel 24:7 shows me the desperation to which these fellows are driven to attack the King James Bible.  It is so obviously a printing error in the 1611 edition that it hardly needs defense.  However, I will do so for those who need it.
 
Any particular copy of the King James Bible does not have to be error-free for the Bible to be the infallibly preserved Bible in the English language.  Typographical errors continue to occur in Bibles today even with our superior computer checking and long-term correction of errors.  If any particular copy of the Bible is found to have a misprint, we simply correct it in the next printing or in the text of our particular copy of the Bible.
 
The error in the 1611 edition of the King James Bible in Ezekiel 24:7 is clearly a misprint which was spotted and corrected so early that there can be no honest opposition to this truth.  First, let's eliminate the other possibilities.
 
1.  It is not a textual problem--by this I mean that there is no difference in the Hebrew text that would cause them to translate without the "not."  The Hebrew Massoretic text used for the translation of the King James Bible has the Hebrew word "lo", meaning "no" or "not".  I also checked several modern translations.  They all have the negative so there is no problem with a different Hebrew text. 
 
2.  It is not a translation problem.  There is no reason to believe that the King James translators translated this passage which clearly has a "not" without the negative.  In fact, the early correction (1613) proves that this was an error in the first printing.
 
3.  It is not a doctrinal error.  One of the interesting things about the printing errors in the King James editions is that they are either so benign that hardly any difference can be discerned in meaning or they are so obvious (as in this case) that they are simple to correct.  One early edition had "Printers have persecuted me without cause" in Psalm 119:161.  This is not something to lose our religion over.  Rather, it is amusing to consider what "printers" have done to the Bible.  Correct it in the text (write the correct words in) or in the next printing but don't glee over your superiority to the Bible God has given to us. One other thought: even though the Ezekiel 24:7 example is the opposite of what it should be, I would challenge anyone to try and teach any false doctrine from the misprint.
 
What is it then?  It is a printing error.  Either the handwritten copy of Ezekiel handed to the printers had the not inadvertently left out or the printers themselves failed to see the not when they laid out the type.  I believe that the Lord preserved His word through the translation process, but I do not believe that He kept the hundreds of people involved in the process from making any mistakes.  These few and minor errors would be corrected over a period of time.
 
A simple word like "not" is very easy to leave out when making a copy of something.  However, it is also very easy to put back in when the mistake is discovered.  This was done in 1613--only 2 years after the original printing!  So, for the last 389 years (out of the 391 since the original King James printing), we have had the correct printing in Ezekiel 24:7--the one that certainly matches the translation decision of the 1611 translators. 
 
Attacking the King James Bible on the basis of such printing errors shows a profound hatred for the Bible used by God for the saving of more souls, the sending of more missionaries, the establishing of more churches, the strengthening of more believers and the stirring of more revivals than any other edition of the Bible in any language for the last 2,000 years--including those in the original tongues.  I actually feel sorry for people like that.
 
NOTE: You can study this question further in the The Myth of Early Revisions.
 
 By David F. Reagan

 

Great post again Will Kinney!

 

AGAIN, we do not "attack the King James Bible". We discuss issues that show a view ABOUT the King James Bible to be FALSE. And what's this about "profound hatred for the Bible"?????!?! Absolutely ridiculous!!!! When are you guys going to understand that?!? David F. Reagan is now officially a liar. Thanks Will, I'm sure he appreciates you making that public, and showing everyone exactly what kind of person he is.

 

As long as we're on the "not" or not, what about Isaiah 9:3? The 1611 and 1769 both have the "not"
with a center column reference which reads "or, to him" - ASV, etc. omit "not" - ASV reads "Thou hast increased the joy" with a footnote that adds the "not." Isaac Leeser's "interlinear", where it is verse 2 (chapter division different), reads:
"Thou hast multiplied the nation, made great their joy. . . ." Young's Literal, "Thou hast made great the joy." It would be interesting to run a thorough study on this one verse!
But Romans 8:28 is still true. -- RCB

 

Isaiah 9:3 is a great example as it nicely illustrates a qere reading. A qere reading is one that occurs in the margin of the Masoretic text. In this case, the marginal reading is “to him” while the reading in the main text is “not.” So if you take the qere reading (which is much more likely given the context), you get “to him increase the joy” but if you stick with the main text, you get “not increase the joy.” The two Hebrew words are very similar and scribes could get confused and they indicate their uncertainty by putting an alternate reading in the margin.

If a KJVO objects to using such a marginal reading, then he must reject the KJV because the KJV uses the qere reading in Job 13:15, “though he slay me, yet I will trust in him.” What does this verse look like if you don’t use the marginal reading? Well, the RSV happens to use the reading in the main part of the text and translates, “he will slay me, I have no hope.”

There are probably a dozen or so of these “not/to him” qere options sprinkled throughout the OT. Did the KJV translators make an infallible choice in every case? How you could you prove that they did? Dogmatic assertion?

Andy

 

Good post Andy. I would also add the question: is the Masoretic "the word of God"? If so, why did the KJV OT explicitly and intentionally deviate from it in at least these places? If not, where was "the word of God in the OT" before the KJV was produced?

A few years ago, I compiled such a list. I found a about 300 qere readings in the KJV, and I know I missed many more. I have an article and the list at:

http://www.tegart.com/brian/bible/kjvonly/qere.html