• Welcome to Baptist Board, a friendly forum to discuss the Baptist Faith in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to all the features that our community has to offer.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

Would a consistent application of their own assertions prove errors in the KJV?

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
If the very assertions or statements made by several KJV-only authors were applied consistently and justly, would they prove that there would be errors in the KJV?

KJV-only author Bob Kendall declared: “Every word and letter that proceeds out of the mouth of God is equally authoritative” (How Firm, p. 53). Bob Kendall claimed: “Whenever the Holy Spirit speaks, every word is just as important as the next word” (p. 56). David Cloud asserted: “The translator is to faithfully transmit the words and message from the original into the receptor language as literally as possible” (Dynamic, p. 47). David Cloud declared: “The omission even of single words is frequently a significant doctrinal issue” (Answering, p. 21; Faith, p. 368; Why We Hold, p. 302). Steve Comb wrote: “Every verse and word in the Bible is significant doctrinally” (So Shall My Word, p. 42). David W. Norris asserted: “Bearing in mind that every single word carries with it the authority of the whole book and were one word missing the Bible would be incomplete and imperfect, we ought not to be surprised that subtracting of even a single word put in place by God or adding a word of our own incurs a penalty of eternal loss” (The Big Picture, pp. 260-261). David Daniels asserted: “First and foremost, we want every word that God said” (51 Reasons, p. 38).


Emanuel Rodriguez declared: “In order for a Bible to be correct it must have every word of God accurately translated in the receptor language” (God’s Bible, p. 15). Charles Kriessman claimed: “Dynamic Equivalence is employed when words in the text are either added, subtracted, or changed in some way” (Modern Version, p. 78). In his criteria for translating, H. D. Williams wrote: “Under no circumstance should words be added, subtracted, or changed in other ways” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). M. H. Tabb asserted: “All Bible Correctors subtract from the words of God” (Inspiration, p. 208). KJV-only author Ken Matto asked: “How can anyone build their faith on what is omitted in the Bible?” (Modern Version, p. 190), but would he apply his own question to the places where the KJV omits words? Is nothing taken away or subtracted from the original-language texts in any of the following KJV renderings? Gary Miller asserted that KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJB, p. 18). Michael Hollner claimed: “The A.V. of God’s Word holds nothing back, nor does it omit any of God’s Words” (King James Only, p. 5). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31).


Does the KJV provide English words for all words in its underlying original-language texts of Scripture as some KJV-only authors suggested or asserted? How does the KJV keep intact or preserve by accurate translation those original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English word/rendering? Does the KJV have each and every original-language word of Scripture accurately translated in English when it has no English rendering for many of them? Does subtracting from the words of God by not giving any English word for many of them make the KJV translators into “Bible correctors” according to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions? Should there be any exceptions to God’s commands about not adding to Scripture and not taking away from it? Did KJV-only advocates believe their own assertions truly and consistently if they do not practice them and do not apply them to the KJV?

Here is just one example of many that could be given where the KJV does not contain any English rendering for an original-language word of Scripture.

1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

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]
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
If the very assertions or statements made by several KJV-only authors were applied consistently and justly, would they prove that there would be errors in the KJV?

KJV-only author Bob Kendall declared: “Every word and letter that proceeds out of the mouth of God is equally authoritative” (How Firm, p. 53). Bob Kendall claimed: “Whenever the Holy Spirit speaks, every word is just as important as the next word” (p. 56). David Cloud asserted: “The translator is to faithfully transmit the words and message from the original into the receptor language as literally as possible” (Dynamic, p. 47). David Cloud declared: “The omission even of single words is frequently a significant doctrinal issue” (Answering, p. 21; Faith, p. 368; Why We Hold, p. 302). Steve Comb wrote: “Every verse and word in the Bible is significant doctrinally” (So Shall My Word, p. 42). David W. Norris asserted: “Bearing in mind that every single word carries with it the authority of the whole book and were one word missing the Bible would be incomplete and imperfect, we ought not to be surprised that subtracting of even a single word put in place by God or adding a word of our own incurs a penalty of eternal loss” (The Big Picture, pp. 260-261). David Daniels asserted: “First and foremost, we want every word that God said” (51 Reasons, p. 38).


Emanuel Rodriguez declared: “In order for a Bible to be correct it must have every word of God accurately translated in the receptor language” (God’s Bible, p. 15). Charles Kriessman claimed: “Dynamic Equivalence is employed when words in the text are either added, subtracted, or changed in some way” (Modern Version, p. 78). In his criteria for translating, H. D. Williams wrote: “Under no circumstance should words be added, subtracted, or changed in other ways” (Word-for-Word Translating, p. 230). M. H. Tabb asserted: “All Bible Correctors subtract from the words of God” (Inspiration, p. 208). KJV-only author Ken Matto asked: “How can anyone build their faith on what is omitted in the Bible?” (Modern Version, p. 190), but would he apply his own question to the places where the KJV omits words? Is nothing taken away or subtracted from the original-language texts in any of the following KJV renderings? Gary Miller asserted that KJV translators “made sure to clearly translate each and every word” (Why the KJB, p. 18). Michael Hollner claimed: “The A.V. of God’s Word holds nothing back, nor does it omit any of God’s Words” (King James Only, p. 5). Charles Keesee asserted: “If God inspired a word to be written down and your Bible does not contain it, then your Bible has an error” (Subtle Apostasy, p. 31).


Does the KJV provide English words for all words in its underlying original-language texts of Scripture as some KJV-only authors suggested or asserted? How does the KJV keep intact or preserve by accurate translation those original-language words of Scripture for which it gives no English word/rendering? Does the KJV have each and every original-language word of Scripture accurately translated in English when it has no English rendering for many of them? Does subtracting from the words of God by not giving any English word for many of them make the KJV translators into “Bible correctors” according to a consistent application of some KJV-only assertions? Should there be any exceptions to God’s commands about not adding to Scripture and not taking away from it? Did KJV-only advocates believe their own assertions truly and consistently if they do not practice them and do not apply them to the KJV?

Here is just one example of many that could be given where the KJV does not contain any English rendering for an original-language word of Scripture.

1 Kings 17:16 [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]

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]
Kjvo do not even admit that there were indeed places in the 1611 Kjv where DE translation was used, and now always a consistent literal method employed
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Please provide a source for the "original" language.
David Cloud asserted: “The translator is to faithfully transmit the words and message from the original into the receptor language as literally as possible” (Dynamic, p. 47).

You would need to ask KJV-only author David Cloud concerning what he meant.

According to the KJV translators, the original languages of Scripture are Hebrew and Greek.

According to its own title page and its preface, the 1611 KJV professed to be translated from the original languages. According to its title page for the New Testament, the 1611 KJV's New Testament was "newly translated out of the original Greek." The first rule for the translating referred to “the truth of the original.” The sixth rule and fifteen rule referred to “Hebrew” and to “Greek.” Lancelot Andrewes (1555-1626), a KJV translator, wrote: "Look to the original, as, for the New Testament, the Greek text; for the Old, the Hebrew" (Pattern of Catechistical Doctrine, p. 59). Gustavus Paine pointed out that another KJV translator John Rainolds (1549-1607) "urged study of the word of God in the Hebrew and Greek, 'not out of the books of translation'" (Men Behind the KJV, p. 84). Mordechai Feingold cited where John Rainolds wrote: “We must diligently give ourselves to reading and meditating of the holy scriptures in tongues in which they were written by the holy Spirit” (Labourers, p. 14). Feingold also cited where John Rainolds asked: “Are not they blind, who prefer a translation, and such a translation before the original?” (p. 121).

In this preface to the 1611 KJV, Miles Smith wrote: “If you ask what they had before them, truly it was the Hebrew text of the Old Testament, the Greek of the New.”

Daniel Featley (1582-1645), who was a chaplain of KJV translator George Abbot, who was appointed to the Westminster Assembly of Divines, and who may have been a KJV translator according to the British Museum list of translators, asserted what could be soundly regarded as the typical Church of England and Protestant view of that day. In 1624, Daniel Featley wrote: “We believe the Originals of the two Testaments, in Hebrew and Greek, to be authentical, and of undoubted authority“ (The Roman Fisher, p. 98).
 

Logos1560

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
The word of God is always right, its nothing to do with what scholars say or did. The Bible overrides all human opinions.
The 1611 KJV is not the word of God that is always right since editions of the KJV have had errors that were wrong and needed correcting.

Since the Bible does not state and teach your human, non-scriptural KJV-only opinions, do you acknowledge that it overrides them?
 

JesusFan

Well-Known Member
Family 35?
No, as there are no originals left of the inspired prophets and apostles, but great news is the God has preserved to and for us throughout history essentially the entire originals to us now into various translations, as regardless of which Greek text prefer, are very close to those originals sources still
 
Top