Questions for “KJV only” advocates:
Some questions by Steve Rudd, who compiled the remaining questions from others; along with questions from other sources.
Answered by Dr. Jack Koons, Koons Evangelistic Ministry
Koons88216@outlook.com
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
The Scriptures (words) were given by inspiration of God. The KJ was never “revised”; it was edited to correct printing errors, change the fonts, and standardize spelling. There were textual changes, but those textual changes reflect errors that should not have occurred in the previous printings.
2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
First, the question is asked in an ad hominem manner, accusing KJVO people of worshipping the KJB. The answer would be, (for English speaking people), any Reformation Bible.
3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
Yes.
4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
The very name “Apocrypha” means “hidden”, or “hide away”. It was never intended to be part of Scripture; hence, it was placed between the Testaments.
5. If the KJV translators were inspire, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha:
I’m assuming the question is asking “If the KJV translators were inspired” … they weren’t, so that is that.
6. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
There isn’t a question above … that is a declarative statement.
7. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
The KJ isn’t an “inspired translation” in the sense that the people that authored this question insinuate it is. False premise.
8. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
The translation was done with the people of God’s choosing, in God’s time. English was still developing, and the biggest development was the standardization of spelling.
9. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
The purpose of the marginal notes was to simply show what they believed “could” have been an alternate choice, but what was put in the text is what matters. Now to address the statement, that followed the question … The KJB is NOT the product of “double inspiration”.
10. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Again, the authors of these questions are building upon the false premise of a “double inspiration”.
11. Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from “The Translators to the Reader.”?
There is no need for the marginal notes, and if someone wants a copy of the 1611 to read the Preface of the 1611; they are available for purchase. The Apocrypha was removed because it caused confusion to some people … it was not part of the Canon of Scripture. It was only included originally for its historical content.
12, When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
The question is based upon the false premise that there is but one “TR”.
13. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
The author is basing the question on the false premise of an ABSOLUTE “word-for-word” translation, rather than Formal Verbal Equivalence. There is no such thing as a “word-for-word” translation due to differing rules of grammar, for the different languages.
14. In defending the KJV’s use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an Early Modern English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
There are very few words in the King James Bible that cannot be understood by the general public. The KJB is written at what used to be a 5th Grade reading level. (Of course, now that our schools are being “dumbed down” that may not be the case. Modern translations actually have words that are harder to understand than the KJ.
15. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If “God’s truth should not be copyrighted” then why do they copy write their defenses of God’s ultimate truth, the Bible?
First question: Do not the anti-KJ people know the difference between the words of the text of Scripture being copyrighted, and the intellectual works of men, (such as commentaries, and reference material such as the Strong’s Concordance, or the Thompson Chain References)? Second question: Yes, but the purpose of copyrighting modern Bibles is because it is one of the largest money making enterprises there are. From 1777 until 1957 there have been over 1,000 versions of the Bible. The number of versions since that time has grown tremendously. Third question: Again, the author carefully worded the question to equate the “Bible” with “reference material” about the Bible. Very bad idea.
16. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn’t? Is this not the ultimate example of “translation worship”? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
Once again the author is using the definite article “the” suggesting there is but a single “TR”. This is a false premise. It is not a single “TR”; but an entire family of Byzantine type manuscripts that support the several Greek texts referred to as “TR”s. Hence, the assertion made in the second question, (and the definition in the parenthesis) are both built upon a false premise. (Do you see the pattern forming here? Questions being asked that are based upon a false premise.)
17. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
This is a blatant lie. The New Testament was based upon many 1) manuscripts, 2) several Greek texts, and 3) the previous English translations that were produced during the Reformation. This author is referring to Erasmus’ FIRST Greek Text (which he published in 1516, which is NOT part of the lineage of the KJB), and ASSERTING that the KJB is based upon that Greek text … which history PROVES is NOT the case.
18. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into Greek which was then translated into English – a translation of a translation of a translation?
First question: Once again, the author is building his question on the false premise that there is but a single “TR”. Yes, Erasmus did translate the last six verses from Latin; but, his translation has proven to be correct by the facts that 1) other Greek MSS do contain these verses as translated by Erasmus; and 2) other ‘version’ of the Bible (the works of Modern Textual Criticism, have also translated these verses according to the words of Erasmus.
19, Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an “archaic English” dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 “tremble”; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between “agape” and “phileo” love words.)
First question: No KJVO person believes that. Second question: I’m not saying they should. Is the author of these questions aware that discernment of the Scriptures is from the Holy Spirit. (No matter the language.) Does the author here not know that context can clear up much of this? And do modern translations not use the same word “love” in their texts?
20. Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn’t God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God’s “mate selection manual.” Also, Isa 22 “He prophesieth Shebna’s deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution” This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
First question: Once again the author is equating the actual text of Scripture, with reference material. Second question: Once again, the author is using the premise of “double inspiration”. Third question: Built upon the same false premise.
21. Why would the translators use book headings like “The Gospel According to Saint Luke” since the Greek merely says “The Gospel According to Luke”. Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of “sainthood”?
Apparently this author doesn’t understand that “holy men” wrote Scripture. The author must also not be aware that the Greek hagios is not only translated as “holy”, but as “saints” as well. It has NOTHING to do with Catholic “sainthood”.
22. Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an “inspired translation”? (Mormon’s believe Joseph Smith’s English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
Once again, we are still referring to the same false premise. What this author refers to as “thousands of errors” are printing errors, font changes, and spelling standardization.
23. Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
Except, the “mistakes” are NOT of the same nature, and again, the author is referring back to double inspiration.
24. Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like “unicorn” for wild ox, “satyr” for “wild goat”, “cockatrice” for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
Once again, we have a false assertion, built upon a false premise. The “unicorn” is a rhino, (not a wild ox). The animals mentioned in the KJB are actual animals.
25. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between “Devil and Demons” (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; “hades and hell” (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
Part 1:
I will present the Stephanus 1550 Greek text of Matthew 4:1, and John 13:2, followed by the Nestle Greek NT 1904 text.
Matthew 4:1
Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ πνεύματος πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου
Τότε ὁ Ἰησοῦς ἀνήχθη εἰς τὴν ἔρημον ὑπὸ τοῦ Πνεύματος, πειρασθῆναι ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου.
John 13:20
καὶ δείπνου γενομένου, τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν Ἰούδα Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτου ἵνα αὐτὸν παραδῷ,
καὶ δείπνου γινομένου, τοῦ διαβόλου ἤδη βεβληκότος εἰς τὴν καρδίαν ἵνα παραδοῖ αὐτὸν Ἰούδας Σίμωνος Ἰσκαριώτης,
The Greek word in question is διαβόλου (which is the exact same in both Greek texts).
Part 2:
“Hades” is simply the abode of the dead. Notice Strong’s states: “Usually Hades is just the abode of the wicked”. Interestingly, in Luke 16:23 we have the wicked dead burning in a literal fire, but the fire only torments, it does not consume. Hence, Hell is the place of torment during “time”, until the day of final judgment.
“geenna” (pronounced Geh-en-ah), is the valley of Hinnom, south of Jerusalem, where the filth and dead animals of the city were cast out and burned. I guess the author doesn’t realize that “hades” is “hell”, and “geenna” is how Jesus typified the Lake of Fire (in the book of the Revelation). The “lake of fire” is the place of final judgment. It is like the county jail being placed inside the federal prison. The former is a temporary place of judgment, until the final sentence is passed. The environment is similar; but all the souls of hell will get a very brief break in their torment, as they stand in their final judgment … then right back to the fire … forever. I see no need to make a big distinction between Hell and the lake of fire … neither place is a place to look forward to.
26. Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
I am beginning to wonder if this author has any honesty at all. What he is doing is playing on the ignorance that he hopes his readers have of the issue of the KJ. Please allow me to point some things out quickly:
Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.
Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.
Romans 4:9 Cometh this blessedness then upon the circumcision only, or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.
Why is this presented different? The structure in the Greek is different, because Paul stated in verse 3 that Abraham “believed” God, (which is a verb); BUT, in verse 9 Paul says “faith” was reckoned … (which is a noun). What Paul is doing is presenting his teaching on “faith” and “righteousness” USING the known passage of Genesis 15:6 as his anchor for this teaching.
Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.
The “it” refers back to the word “faith” in verse 20. This is called “teaching”. Repetitiously going back to the source various ways to get the point across. (And this is supported by the Greek, even though Mr. Rudd emphatically is asserting otherwise.)
Galatians 3:6 Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.
I really don’t see the problem here … do you?
This is what the KJ translators said pertaining to this:
“An other thing we thinke good to admonish thee of (gentle Reader) that wee have not tyed our selves to an uniformitie of phrasing, or to an identitie of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done, because they observe, that some learned men some where, have beene as exact as they could that way. Truly, that we might not varie from the sense of that which we had translated before, if the word signified the same thing in both places (for there bee some wordes that bee not of the same sense every where) we were especially carefull, and made a conscience, according to our duetie.”
27.Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one “like the Son of God” instead of “like a son of God”, even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent “His angel” to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion’s confession in Mt 27:54.)
Does Mr. Rudd understand the difference between a general statement, and quoting an individual? Daniel is quoting what Nebuchadnezzar stated. What Daniel is presenting, is a factual report of a historical event. Even though in verse 28 Nebuchadnezzar said, “Blessed be the God of Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego, who hath sent his angel”; Daniel is still simply quoting Nebuchadnezzar. The same applies to Matthew’s account in 27:54. The Greek reads, Ὁ δὲ ἑκατόνταρχος καὶ οἱ μετ’ αὐτοῦ τηροῦντες τὸν Ἰησοῦν ἰδόντες τὸν σεισμὸν καὶ τὰ γενόμενα ἐφοβήθησαν σφόδρα λέγοντες Ἀληθῶς θεοῦ υἱὸς ἦν οὗτος Do you see the second last word ἦν? It is the definite article in the Greek, Mr. Rudd is not being very truthful.
28. How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase “book of life” is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read “tree of life”?
Before answering the question directly, please allow me to answer this question, with a question … If Acts 9:6 is not found in any Greek Manuscript, why is it in the N/A 28 (and all previous critical texts)? If modern scholarship truly believes that Acts 9:6 is not part of Scripture, why do they include at least part of that verse in both their Greek texts, and in modern translations?
Now to answer the question directly. The promise of preservation of the Scriptures is not limited to the Greek text (for the New Testament). There are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts, 10,000 Latin and 9,000 other–totaling over 24,000 manuscript copies or portions of the New Testament. Although the disputed words of Acts 9:6 have not been preserved in the extant Greek manuscripts at Acts 9:6, they have been preserved in the Latin manuscripts (ar, c, h, l, p, ph, t) as well as other translations (Georgian, Slavonic, Ethiopic). The greatest textual critic of all, the Holy Spirit, bears witness to their authenticity by including them in Acts 22:10 and 26:14.
29. How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
This question is based upon a number of false assertions. The first assertion is the text (1 John 5:8, is supposed to be 1 John 5:7). The second assertion: It is “found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate”. There are many sources that show the various manuscript evidence of the disputed text of 1 John 5:7, dating as far back as 120 – 150 AD. The evidence is so great that the late Dr. Bruce Metzger even changed his comments about this verse on pg 291 (n2) of the (new) 3rd edition of The Text of the New Testament.
“What is said on p. 101 above about Erasmus’ promise to include the Comma Johanneum if one Greek manuscript were found that contained it, and his subsequent suspicion that MS. 61 was written expressly to force him to do so, needs to be corrected in the light of the research of H.J. de Jonge, a specialist in Erasmian studies who finds no explicit evidence that supports this frequently made assertion; see his “Erasmus and the Comma Johanneum”, Ephemerides Theologicae Lovanienses, lvi (1980),” pp 381-9.”
In this short answer paper, I do not have the space to write the long story of how Metzger arrived at this conclusion, only that it did; which proves the question void of truth.
30. How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of “seraphims” rather than “seraphim”?
The word “seraphim” is actually a transliteration of the Hebrew. Because this causes difficulty to English readers, the translators of the King James simply added the letter “s” to show its plurality. Many translations use the “seraphim”, (leaving some readers in doubt as to its being singular, or plural. Some translators even ignored the actual meaning of the word, and simply translated seraphim as “creature”. Hence, this is not a “grammatical error”, but an intentional adding of the “s” to insure the understanding that it is plural.
31. Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it “the word of God”? If so, how do we know “it” is perfect? If not, why do some “limit” “the word of God” to only ONE “17th Century English” translation? Where was “the word of God” prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have “the word of God” when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
This is four questions:
Question 1. If we are referring to the ENTIRETY of the text of the Bible; the answer is Yes.
Question 2. Knowing God’s Word is perfect results from a number of evidences that together, (in the mouth of two or three witness), confer to us as believers, that God has persevered His Words, as He promised He would do.
Question 3. Question 1 was answered in the affirmative, and therefore, this question does not apply.
Question 4. The word of God (in its ENTIRETY) was found in the manuscript tradition; and (since the English language was well into its development), it was almost entirely found in the English Bibles of the Reformation, including the Geneva Bible.
32. Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the very meanest [poorest] translation” is still “the word of God”?
No. They were simply stating that even “the very meanest translation” still contains the words of God. I know that isn’t precisely what they said, but anyone being honest knows that is the message they were presenting.
33. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are “the word of God”?
This question AGAIN is built on the false premise that there is a SINGLE monolithic text for the Old Testament, and one for the New Testament. That is a false premise, and therefore the question itself is invalid.
34. Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can “correct” the English?
This is a fallacious question in general. First, (as I have already stated numerous times), the Hebrew and Greek texts that underly the KJB were not given as a monolithic text, and therefore are (in actuality) a group of texts, that have been collected into a single volume. Hence, the texts we have of both the OT and the NT are eclectic texts. However, since NO PARTICULAR SINGLE Hebrew or Greek text was used to translate the KJB, there is no basis for this question. AND, just for the record; EVERY Hebrew and Greek text is an eclectic text. However, the reason modern Bible keep changing (textually), is because the underlying texts keep getting edited. The N/A Greek text is now on its 28th edition, with now plans on stopping the editing.
35. Do you believe that the English of the KJV “corrects” its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
No.
36. Is ANY translation “inspired”? Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?
The very fact that these questions is asked shows that Mr. Rudd doesn’t know the difference between “inspiration” and “translation”. Mr. Rudd is referring to “Double Inspiration”. Admittedly, there are those KJVO people the subscribe to “Double Inspiration” (such as the followers of Peter Ruchman), but any person who understands the proper Doctrine of Preservation, knows that inspiration only occurred when the words of Scripture were given. (Hence, the direct answer is, No.)
37. Is the KJV “scripture” ? Is IT “given by inspiration of God”? [2 Tim. 3:16]
Two completely different questions: Is the KJV “scripture”? Absolutely! Is IT “given by inspiration of God” NO. (Mr. Rudd, the KJB is a translation of the Scriptures, which were given by inspiration of God, in the original languages. PERIOD.) It appears that Mr. Rudd has fallen to the idea that ALL people that believe the KJB perfect, also believe it is the result of Double Inspiration. This of course, is not the case.
38. WHEN was the KJV “given by inspiration of God” – 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
Mr. Rudd is either trying to be tricky, or he is playing on what he hopes is people’s ignorance of the issue. Notice how Mr. Rudd presents his question: “WHEN was the KJV “given by inspiration of God””. Mr. Rudd is AGAIN basing his question upon the false assertion that the KJV was “given by inspiration of God”; therefore, every question that Mr. Rudd asks built upon this false assertion is an invalid question. Furthermore, these were not “revisions”, they were “editions”. They were edited to correct printing errors, make font changes, and apply the standardization of spelling that the English language was still going through during those years.
39. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
Although Mr. Rudd intends this question to be a “smoking gun” type of question for the KJVO position; it is actually a very good question. The truth of the matter is, Jesus never said that the Old Testament would be preserved ONLY in Hebrew. God only stated that “one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled”. Jesus said NOTHING about using ANY particular language. That means of course that Jesus can use any language He chooses, or all of them!
40. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
Nowhere. (Of course, that isn’t the precise claim of the KJVO position.)
41. Did God lose the words of the originals when the “autographs” were destroyed?
No. (But then again, no KJVO person, rightly understanding the issue, has ever claimed such nonsense.)
42. Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was “translated out of the original Greek”? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they “liars” for claiming to have “the original Greek” to translate from?
No. The meaning of “original Greek” isn’t the “autographs”; but rather, the original “words”. When I print these answers onto a piece of paper, and then make 20 copies, are the same words on the copies that are on the original printing of these words? A little common sense goes al long ways.
43. Was “the original Greek” lost after 1611?
This question is based upon the premise that the meaning of “the original Greek” meant the “autographs”, not the original words of the Scripture.
44. Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without “the word of God”?
No. Mr. Rudd seems to not have a solid definition of “the word of God”.
45. What copy or translations of “the word of God,” used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
Again, Mr. Rudd is asking this question on the false premise that “the word of God” was given in, and as, a monolithic text; which it was not. The English Bibles used during the reformation were all “good” Bibles in that they CONTAINED nearly all of the words which were, and are published in the KJ, and (as far as the NT is concerned), were based upon the Byzantine text type MSS.
46. If the KJV is “God’s infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people,” did the “English-speaking people” have “the word of God” from 1525-1604?
Once again, Mr. Rudd fails to comprehend the matter at hand. But notice with me the careful wording of Mr. Rudd’s question. In the first part of his question he uses the phrase, “God’s infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people”, but in the latter part of the question he simply asked if they “have “the word of God”. I believe he knows better, but wants to present a “gotcha” question, (for those who are ignorant of the facts). Yes, the people had the vast majority of the “word of God”, even though they didn’t have all of the word of God. There are many people in the world that only have small portions of the Scriptures.
47. Was Tyndale’s [1525], or Coverdale’s [1535], or Matthew’s [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
No.
48. If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be “born again” by the “incorruptible word of God”? [1 Peter 1:23]
People do not need the ENTIRE BIBLE to be saved. (That’s like saying you need a complete Chilton car manual to know how to change the oil in a car.)
49. If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” need correction or improvement?
This question is based upon the false premise that the KJB can “correct” the inspired originals.
50. Since most “KJV-Onlyites” believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired “scripture” [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that “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,” would you not therefore reason thus – “For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost”?
What is interesting about this question is that Mr. Rudd DIDN’T reference 2 Timothy 3:16 & 17 which defines HOW the Holy Spirit moved in order to give man the Scriptures. God “breathed” the Scriptures to man. In the translation of the Scriptures, the words had previously been given, and the Holy Spirit now provided the wisdom to the translators to translate those words into the English language with such accuracy, that had God originally given His word in English, the KJB, would be the autographs.
51. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture – “whom ye” [Cambridge KJV’s] or, “whom he” [Oxford KJV’s] at Jeremiah 34:16?
Yes, the Oxford, and the Cambridge have about seven words out of 783,137 words that are different, and the Cambridge is the proper rendering.
52. Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture – “sin” [Cambridge KJV’s] or “sins” [Oxford KJV’s] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
See question 51.
53. Who publishes the “inerrant KJV”?
Church Bible Publishers out of Longview, TX, along with a few other publishers, such as Mechling Bookbindery.
54. Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words – would you say the KJV was “verbally inerrant” in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
First, the KJB was NOT revised in any of the years provided in the above question; and the last “edition” was done in 1769 by Blaney. As to the changes that were made; they were made to correct previous printing errors, change the fonts, and align with the standardization of spelling that had occurred over the years. The other changes that Mr. Rudd asserts were made are figments of someone’s imagination.
55. Would you contend that God waited until a king named “James” sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an “Epistle Dedicatory” that praises this king as “most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty’s Royal Person . . .” – IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation – Antonia Fraser — “King James VI of Scotland, I of England” Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 || Caroline Bingham — “The Making of a King” Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198 || Otto J. Scott — “James I” Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382 || David H. Wilson — “King James VI & I” Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395 || plus several encyclopedias]
First, there are people that have published works that claim King James was a homosexual, but others (such as Dr. Phil Stringer) have researched, and published works that clearly shows these allegations were completely fabricated by those who hated King James.
56. Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was “led by God in translating” even though he was an alcoholic that “drank his fill daily” throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine — “The Men Behind the KJV” Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
Mr. Rudd makes the assertion that Richard Thomson was an “alcoholic’ and because Gustavus S. Paine in his work, “The Men Behind the KJV”, stated that some people described Richard Thomson as a man that “drank his fill daily”. But has Mr. Rudd done any actual research himself to see whether or not such assertions are true? I say not. As a matter of fact, after answering 56 out of about 69 questions, I have found that Mr. Rudd has done little to no reading on anything but “anti-KJV” sites, to obtain his ‘information’.
57. Is it possible that the rendition “gay clothing,” in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
Only if the reader does no studying at all concerning the meaning of words used in the Bible.
58. Did dead people “wake up” in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
No. (If Mr. Rudd must ask this question to assert that the KJB is in error, he is rather desperate.)
59. Was “Baptist” John’s last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
Okay, is it reasonable to conclude that Mr. Rudd is grasping at straws at this point? John was known as “John, the Baptist” (just like Isaiah the prophet). But in the two texts provided, we have the Holy Spirit bearing record of the words stated by men. They were smart enough to know what these men meant, quite possibly, Mr. Rudd is not.
60. Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? – “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.” As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] – “We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange – I speak as to my children – open wide your hearts also.”
Every occupation has a vocabulary that people in that vocation must learn, to communicate properly in that vocation. The Bible does have some words that we may have to actually pick up a dictionary and do a little word study. I remind you of a few words of Scripture:
2 Timothy 2:15 Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
61. Does the singular “oath’s,” occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, “correct” every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural (“oaths”) by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
No. The KJ translators (knowing the context of the text), and the tradition of the time, translated the word “oaths” as “oath’s sake” BECAUSE the context supports the latter.
62. Did Jesus teach a way for men to be “worshiped” according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember – you may not go the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Context, context, context. Is Mr. Rudd totally unaware that words can have several meanings, and the correct meaning of the word used is understood by the context in which it is used? I deliberately NEVER go to a platform when I am speaking at a church because there are churches where the Pastor only wants particular men on the platform. I do not presume that because I am an evangelist, that automatically gives me the right to claim a position of honor. I am a servant of God, and only step into a position that is higher than I have taken, when I am invited to do so.
63. Is the Holy Spirit an “it” according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again – you may not go the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
Has Mr. Rudd considered the fact that if the Holy Spirit gave those words to the writers of Scripture as He did, it is okay to use them as such?
64. Does Luke 23:56 support a “Friday” crucifixion in the KJV? [No “day” here in Greek]
No. However, does Mr. Rudd not know that there were high sabbath days other than Saturdays?
65. Did Jesus command for a girl to be given “meat” to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, “of them that sit at meat with thee.” at Luke 14:10]
This shows the depth of Mr. Rudd’s study of Scripture. Jesus was simply telling them to give her food. (But even if they gave her “meat”, what is the issue?)
66. Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a “Bible-corrector” for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered “saved in hope,” instead of the KJV’s “saved by hope”? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 – see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is “KJV-Onlyism?”, his & many others’ views in the article, “Quotes on Bible Translations.”]
Spurgeon was a great preacher, but he wasn’t without error … let him that is without sin, cast the first stone.
67. Was J. Frank Norris a “Bible-corrector” for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be “born of water and the Spirit,” and for saying that “repent and turn” in Acts 26:20 should be “repent, even turn”? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an “Alexandrian Apostate” for stating, “The nature of language does not permit a ‘perfect’ translation – the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A ‘perfect’ translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for “agapao” [translated “loved” in John. 3:16].”?
See question 66.
68. Was R. A. Torrey “lying” when he said the following in 1907 – “No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given”? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
See question 66.
69. Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing “in favor of canonizing our KJV,” thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
See question 66.
More questions from others on the Web:
“First of all is it your contention that the translators of the Authorized (King James) Version of the Bible were wrong when they wrote “The Translators to the Reader?” You will note below that the King James Translators not only did not claim their translation was perfect, but they went so far as to refute that opinion.” Questions for those holding an extreme KJVO position | Baptist Christian Forums (baptistboard.com)
The translators of the KJ were humble men, and while there work of translation was indeed done with “wisdom from above”, this does not mean that the Preface to the reader was done with that same level of “wisdom from above”. The translators were again being humble concerning their work, and were simply telling us the reader how much they valued the Word of God. It was not in their power to perfect it, nor was it their purpose to use their “wisdom” to correct it. It was their duty to be honest in that it was a hard task, and so difficult at times, that they put variants into the margin. But the real question to be asked is, did the Holy Spirit give them the wisdom to put the correct words in the actual “text”, even when they themselves may have wondered whether or not they did? By faith, I believe the Holy Spirit did. The entire Bible is a book of “faith”, not a book where everything must fit into man’s ideology.
From the same writer, (and the same source), we get our next question:
“I would also like to ask you if you do not realize that the constant insistence that the Authorized Version is “perfect,” “inspired,” et cetera is in fact doing more harm to the cause of the Authorized Version than good? Can you not see that your radical claims are driving people away from the AV rather than to it?”
I wasn’t aware that it was! In fact, the King James still outsells every other Bible being printed today, in spite of the fact that there are so many people (like the author of this question), who oppose the KJVO position.
This next ‘statement’ is from another person, but from the same source:
“To equate man-made work as “infallible” or “inspired” or “perfect” is the height of arrogance and lifting the work of man to the level of God.
God’s Words are perfect. He breathed actual words (in Hebrew and Greek) and I am so blessed that we still have them. They were preserved as He promised.
These inspired perfect God-breathed words may be translated into 7000 languages on earth so that the message of Law and Gospel might be proclaimed.
NOWHERE did God promise to preserve man’s words, translations, or such.
The AV1611 translators were correct in their preface and realization that there was no “miracle” of God here. It is modern extremists who want to elevate them and their work to the level of God.
Foolishness.”
This, folks, is how one speaks out of both sides of their mouth. This man (Dr. Bob, an Administrator of this site), is presenting the typical anti-KJVO arguments we see.
Let’s unpack this:
“To equate man-made work as “infallible” or “inspired” or “perfect” is the height of arrogance and lifting the work of man to the level of God.”
What this man is saying is that people who hold the KJVO position are doing concerning the translators of the KJ. He is saying that the work of translation is the “work of man”, and that we are raising the translation to the “level of God”. What actually happened was another man (Pastor Bob) made the following comment about the words in the Preface, in comparison to the words of Scripture:
“I am not what I would consider as an “extreme” KJVO in any stretch of the imagination. In fact, there aren’t many of those left around here. They get banned quicker than any single group of posters. Granted, it was their disposition rather than their position that led to their demise.
That being said, the translators may not have understood that they were being providentially used by God to preserve His Word. It is the doctrine of preservation that causes us to conclude that the KJV is the Word of God for English speaking peoples. The Translators to the Readers is not on the same plane as inspired Scripture. Certainly what they penned for us should be of interest, but not to the degree that it equals the holy Scriptures. You see, their writing came from fallible men, whereas their translation came from an infallible God.”
Pastor Bob was simply stating, (as do I) that the KJ translators were being used by God, (and given wisdom from above to do so), in the preservation of Scripture, as well as translating the Scriptures into English. (This was NOT simply, the “work of men” … it was done in the power of God. Maybe something Dr. Bob needs to learn.)
Dr. Bob continues:
“God’s Words are perfect. He breathed actual words (in Hebrew and Greek) and I am so blessed that we still have them. They were preserved as He promised.”
My next question would be (to Dr. Bob), Where are they preserved perfectly? (in Hebrew and Greek) There is no single Hebrew or Greek manuscript that matches ANY Hebrew and Greek text today perfectly. (Keep in mind, all Hebrew and Greek “texts” are eclectic works.) The answer by scholarship today to this question, “Where are they preserved perfectly? … is “Somewhere in the manuscript tradition” … which means, “I don’t know precisely”.
Again, Dr. Bob continues:
“These inspired perfect God-breathed words may be translated into 7000 languages on earth so that the message of Law and Gospel might be proclaimed.”
What Dr. Bob is saying is that the Greek texts, (that modern scholars determine to as being “inspired perfect God-breathed words”, can be translated … but again, where are these “perfect words”?
Dr. Bob continues:
“NOWHERE did God promise to preserve man’s words, translations, or such.”
This begs the question … are all translated words the words of the translator, or the words of the person that gave us the original source? When Flavius Josephus wrote his works in Greek, which were translated into Latin, and later into English, do we name his works after the name of the translators, or does the authorship remain Flavius Josephus? Does Dr. Bob believe that every Christian must learn Hebrew to have God’s words of the Old Testament? How does Dr. Bob deal with the fact that ALL of the NT writers that referenced the OT writings, translated them into Greek? Did Jesus speak only Hebrew, or did He also speak Aramaic, and possibly Latin, and or Greek? The point is that all four of these languages were spoken during the time when Jesus had His ministry, and when the Scriptures were written, they were quickly translated into many languages around the middle east. So, once again, the question for Dr. Bob is, “Did the words of God that were translated in the first few centuries, remain God’s words; or did they become man’s words once they were translated? And if Jesus translated the Hebrew of the OT when He taught, was it still authentic, or did it change since it was translated?
Continuing with Dr. Bob:
“The AV1611 translators were correct in their preface and realization that there was no “miracle” of God here. It is modern extremists who want to elevate them and their work to the level of God.
Foolishness.”
Isn’t it the miracle of God that we even have God’s words at all? There is nothing “extreme” about believing that God would give wisdom from above to translated His words into the languages of the world … but, I suppose Dr. Bob is entitled to his own opinion.
KJVO and TRO, and BTO Questions
- If God’s Word is only found in the 1611 KJV, where was God’s Word from 100 A.D. – 1610 A.D.?
This question falsely asserts that the “God’s Word is only found in the 1611 KJV”.
(2) How many textual errors (differences) are in the Byzantine manuscripts used to make the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV?
Since there are literally thousands of MSS that fall under the umbrella (categorically) of the “Byzantine manuscripts, it would take literally “years” to determine the exact number of “differences” between the MSS. However, the premise of the question is that every “difference” is an “error”. Two manuscripts being different only means that only one could be in error; while the other is correct. Nevertheless, the agreement in the literally thousands of Byzantine MSS is far greater than that of the Minority/Critical Text, even though there are but a hand full in number. As Dean John Burgon attests, Sinaiticus and Vaticanus, differ, more than they agree.
(3) How many textual errors (differences) are in the handful of Byzantine manuscripts used to make the Textus Receptus, which is behind the KJV?
This question first is built upon the false premise that ALL the MSS used to produce a “Greek Text” must be error free (no differences), in order to produce a perfect Greek Text. That is a false premise. Secondly, this question also is built on the premise that there was a single “Greek Text” known as the “Textus Receptus” which is “behind the KJV”. This is also a false premise, since the KJB was NOT produced from a single “Textus Receptus”.
(4) If there are no textual differences in the 4,000 Byzantine texts (which there are), what was the Word of God before the fifth-century Byzantine text of Codex Alexandrinus (400-440 A.D.)? Only the Western and the Alexandrian family texts existed in the third and fourth centuries, and only the Alexandrian in the second century. So, God allowed errors by the copyists of the Alexandrian and Western manuscripts but miraculously inspired the thousands of Byzantine copyists from 400 to 1455 A.D.?
The above consists of two questions, with a false assertion between them.
Question 1: The question is again built upon the false premise that ALL MSS must be perfect in order for the Word of God to be preserved perfectly.
The false assertion between the two questions is that “Only the Western and the Alexandrian family texts existed in the third and fourth centuries, and only the Alexandrian in the second century”. The author of this statement is purposefully ignoring the fact that Greek wasn’t the only language MSS existed in the first several centuries.
Question two is bult upon the false premises preceding it, and is therefore also void.
(5) The Byzantine Advocates (the text behind the TR) acknowledge there are differences between the Byzantine text and the Textus Receptus, and Textus Receptus Advocates believe there are differences between the TR and the Byzantine text. So, where is the miraculous preservation of Scripture?
In the ENTIRETY of the Manuscript Tradition.
(6) The TRist and the KJVOist argue that the New Testament original is found in the majority of the manuscripts, which is the Byzantine. However, there is a problem, there was no Byzantine text for the first four centuries, and the Byzantine text did not become the majority of the manuscripts until the 9th century. So, what was the New Testament Text before the 9th century when the Byzantine came to be the majority, and until then, the Alexandrian was the majority?
Working from the last question first: The question AGAIN is built upon the false premise that the Alexandrian was EVER in the majority. (This false assertion, (and premise), is built entirely upon EXTANT MSS.) The idea that just because MSS do not exist today, doesn’t mean they never did. I owned an 8-track player in the 70’s, but it no longer exists, does that mean it never did?
The author of this question must lack a historical knowledge of how the Byzantine Empire came into existence. Without getting into a long history lesson, when the New Testament was being written, the territory wherein it was mainly written was the eastern, and northern part of the Mediterranean Sea, which was part of the Roman Empire. The Roman empire was succeeded by the Byzantine Empire. (Mainly the eastern area) Therefore, the MSS that originated from this are referred to as “Byzantine” not “Roman/Byzantine”. But how can this author possibly assert (correctly), that there were more copies originating from Alexandria, when the MSS originated from the Roman Empire? This isn’t rocket science.
(7) Which is inerrant, the Latin Vulgate Erasmus used to make some of the Textus Receptus or the Byzantine texts?
Once again, the premise is that every manuscript has to be inerrant, for the words of the original manuscripts to be preserved, inerrantly. This is a false premise.
(8) What was the inerrant word of God in the second and third centuries AD, before the development of the Byzantine text?
Once again, the same false premise …
(9) You say scribes/copyists do not introduce changes to the text intentionally and unintentionally, so how do you explain the copyists who write in the margins that a previous copyist made changes? How do you explain the differences in the manuscripts?
First is the assertion that the KJVO advocate makes that statement. There were scribes and copyists who did introduce changes into the text. The real question is, by which scribes, and for what purpose? During the Arian Controversy (4th century), I believe there was a purposeful attempt to remove texts from Scripture supporting the Trinity. (The greatest is 1 John 5:7).
For those who loved the Lord, and His Word, the copies were much purer than those who had no such love for the Lord, nor His Word.
(10) Speaking of the Textus Receptus, which of the four editions by Desiderius Erasmus do you prefer (1519,
1522, 1527, 1535), or the four editions of Robert Estienne (Stephanus) (1503– 1559), or the nine editions by Théodore Beza (1519– 1605)? How did the term Textus Receptus come about? How did the Greek text develop from Desiderius Erasmus to Robert Estienne to Théodore Beza, and did any of the editions have a critical apparatus with variants, and did any of these men consult any Alexandrian manuscripts?
The false premise now extends to the Greek texts made by the men listed above. Why is “How did the term Textus Receptus come about?” relevant? The last question is almost hilarious. The question is presented as though a “critical apparatus” is needed, or that the Alexandrian manuscripts needed to be consulted. A simple look at Vaticanus (which was available to Erasmus), would be all that is necessary to refuse its inclusion.
(11) If the KJVOist advocates are correct and the copyists for the Byzantine text DID NOT make all the additions to the Greek text but rather the Alexandrian copyists removed them, why do the 140+ papyri manuscripts discovered in the 1930s—the 1950s date with decades of the originals, 200 years before the 4th-century Alexandrian Vaticanus and Sinaiticus and 350 years before the earliest 5th-century Byzantine text looks just like the Alexandrian of manuscripts?
Now pause with me for a moment. Today’s scholarship asserts that “no two manuscripts are identical”. The end of the above question ends with, “looks just like the Alexandrian of manuscripts”, (an assertion that they are identical … the use of the words “just like”). But, this author wants to compare 140 manuscripts to nearly 6,000 manuscripts, and claim that the 140, because they are ‘older’, they are ‘better’, or more ‘authentic’. The question is, why haven’t the Byzantine MSS survived in like manner? The answer is, that they were simply worn out thorough use.
(12) THE PREFACE to the 1611 KJV by the translators says the KJV was a revision of the 16th-century translations of Coverdale, Tyndale, the Great Bibles, and others. The translators said they expect new revisions of their KJV translation when more manuscripts come to light, and if there was an improved understanding of Hebrew and Greek, there should be revisions. Were those translators wrong?
After having read the Preface of the 1611 many times, the author of this question would need to show me these words in the Preface, for I have never seen them, (although, I have heard several men opposed to the KJB, say they are present. (Hence, the question is built upon yet another false premise.)
(13) What do you do with the fact that the KJV has 1,000 different words that do not mean today what they meant in 1611, even having the opposite meaning? Our understanding of Hebrew and Greek has astronomically improved since 1611. There have been thousands of manuscripts discovered since 1611, and we now have 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts and numerous ones dating within decades of the originals. And the 1611 KJV translators said in the 1611 PREFACE that a new revision should be made upon such circumstances. So, why reject efforts to do so with the 1881 English Revised Version (ERV), the 1901 American Standard Version (ASV), the 1952 Revised Standard Version (RSV), the 1995 New American Standard Bible (NASB), the 2001 English Standard Version (ESV), and the forthcoming Updated American Standard Version (UASV)? Aren’t these revisions simply following the instructions of the 1611 KJV translators?
Question 1: Buy a Noah Webster Dictionary, and A Strong’s Concordance. Think about this, in nearly every occupation, there is a particular “vocabulary” that is specific to that occupation. Do we complain that these vocabularies need to be learned, or do we learn them to do our jobs efficiently?
Question 2: No, our understanding of the Hebrew has NOT “astronomically improved since 1611”; that is a lie.
Question 3: Nearly ALL of the 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts are of the Byzantine text type, and are considered “inferior” to modern scholarship. This is a case where we have a mixture of blatant lies, and absolute deceit on the part of modern scholarship. They SAY we now have nearly 6,000 manuscripts to compare, but simultaneously call over 95% of those MSS “inferior”, because they are Byzantine. The truth is, they most heavily adhere to, and use Vaticanus and Sinaiticus as the basis of there Greek text, following the work of Westcott and Hort. In other words, they may have 5,898 Greek NT manuscripts, but they reject nearly all of them as being inferior.
Again, the translators of the KJB made no such comments in the Preface.
(14) Why is the earlier Byzantine text more similar to the Alexandrian text in that it differs from the later Byzantine text in roughly 3000 places?
First, there is no single “Byzantine text”, and there is no single “Alexandrian text”. There are MSS that belong to each of the two families of MSS, according to their text type. (Hence the reason there are two families.)
Second, there are over 5,000 Greek manuscripts in the Byzantine family, and if these only differ in 3,000 places, that in itself is astonishingly good. These differences are often as simple as a single letter.
Consider this:
“According to Herman C. Hoskier, there are, without counting errors of iotacism, 3,036 textual variations between Sinaiticus and Vaticanus in the text of the Gospels alone
Assuming that the same ratio of variants persists in the rest of the New Testament and doing the math, that’s ~3434 additional variants, for a total of ~6470 variants between them. There are 7956 verses in the New Testament. That’s an average of 0.81 variants per verse between Vaticanus and Sinaiticus. Therefore, roughly 4 out of every 5 verses (81.3%) in one manuscript disagrees in at least one place in the other. (On average. In reality, the distribution is never that perfect.)”
