by Dr. Thomas Holland
Dear Friends,
This is the first lesson for the Advanced Class concerning manuscript evidence, and the King James Bible. A variety of topics and issues related to textual criticism and the KJV will be discussed throughout this course. It is not intended to be presented in a certain order, nor is one lesson based upon another. Additionally, there is no set time limit as to when the lessons will end and therefore the class should be considered ongoing. Students are free to interact and encouraged to ask questions and make comments. The only thing I request is that you respect the views and comments of others. Some lessons will have assignments, which the student may or may not wish to fulfill. That is a decision each one of you must make for yourself in regard to your time and the amount of input you wish to make to the class. All lessons will be sent per Blind CC, however, a class roster will be e-mailed so that students may interact. The roster is subject to change and will only be updated from time to time.
Our first "lesson" is designed to be both interactive and ongoing. Knowing that sometimes we can learn from questions and wholesome debate, I have set forth to answer several questions found on the Interactive Bible Study (IBS) web site and their section concerning those of us who believe the King James Bible is the preserved word of God for the English-speaking [people] (http:/www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm) [The web page no longer appears to be there - Jody Adair, Sojourners of the Lord.] This web page is set up by Steve Rudd as a tool for ministry by, if I am not mistaken, the Church of Christ. In the section concerning the KJV, there are several arguments raised against what the author calls "KJV Only advocates." While the web site states that they accept the KJV, and modern versions, as the word of God they also seek to point out what they feel are errors in the KJV. One section raises 29 questions for those of us who believe the KJV is the preserved word of God. For our first lessons, I have responded to 19 of the 29 questions. The remaining 10 questions were left unanswered intentionally so that they may be used as an assignment for our class (more concerning this will be stated later in the letter "Adv. Class 1: The 10 Remaining Questions.")
In the IBS web site, there is a link which allows the viewer to send e-mail to local minister in his or her state or country. Through this, I was able to locate the address of Steve Rudd and sent him a copy of the open letter responding to 19 of his 29 questions (this open letter is being sent to you per e-mail as "Adv. Class 1a-c"). Additionally, I sent a CC of the open letter to all the Church of Christ minister listed in the IBS in my home state of Ohio, and several other states in the mid-west and south. So far, I have received about a half dozen responses. These letters, along with my replay, are being forward to you for your consideration. Interesting, not all who responded agree with Brother Rudd concerning the KJV. Any additional letters will likewise be forward to the class. However, I do ask that you not respond to these letters in that this has already been done and I do not want to overwhelm them with an abundance of unwelcomed mail. Nevertheless, if the student wishes to copy the open letter and send it to others in their state or country, they are free to do so.
For this lesson, the student is encouraged to do the following. ONE: read the open letter answering 19 of the 29 questions raised. [The following site is no longer online or at this url - added by Jody Adair of Sojourners of the Lord] TWO: if possible, go to the IBS web site and read their articles on the KJV for yourself. (http:/www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm) THREE: complete the assignment regarding the 10 remaining questions. Since there is an assignment, and I expect additional letters from the IBS, this lesson should be ongoing and allow you some interaction. If you have any questions concerning this class, or issues raised in the class, please feel free to write and I try and respond as soon as I can. Until later, may God richly bless as you labor for Him.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland, Th.D.
Psalm 118:8
HOME PAGE: Logos 1611
Re: The Interactive Bible Study
Dear Sirs,
I am writing concerning the Interactive Bible Study and the section regarding the King James Version. Near the beginning of the article the following challenge is made: "Click here to tell us of how we misrepresented KJV only position". Since I believe the KJV to be the preserved word of God for the English-speaking people, and have noticed several places where our position has been misrepresented, I have felt compelled to respond.
The section I would like to address is entitled, "Questions for 'KJV only' advocates." Because I teach a course on textual criticism as it relates to the Authorized Version, a copy of this letter will be sent to my advanced student class for their consideration. Likewise, any relative response you provide will be forwarded to them without editing (I have already linked your site to my own). My URL is posted at the end of this letter.
It is not my intention to argue for arguments sake or to belittle anyone concerning this issue as such is unprofitable and ungodly. It is my intention to discuss the questions raised, point out misrepresentations, and provide Biblical and scholastic reasoning for our position. Also, I believe this will be helpful to my students as they engage in such questions in their own lives. Therefore, I have left the last 10 questions unanswered as an assignment for them. Finally, once I have responded I have raised a question of my own. It is my hope that you will respond. The 19 questions addressed are numbered and placed between double arrows.
>1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
An interesting question. Unfortunately, it reflects a misunderstanding of the issues involved and the meaning of "revision." The issue is not one of INSPIRATION but is one of PRESERVATION. Inspiration deals with the original manuscripts, of which we have none. Preservation deals with the promise of God to keep His words throughout all generations (Psalm 12:6-7; Matthew 24:35; 1 Peter 1:23).
The revisions dealt with orthography (spelling changes), calligraphy, paragraph markings and correction of some printing errors. However, the text remained unaltered. In 1888 the Royal Printer, John R. Dore, undertook an exhaustive study of early English versions and the revisions of the KJV. His conclusion was, "That pearl of great price, the English Bible of 1611, remained so long without alteration,. . . " (Dore, Old Bibles, p.iii). Likewise, the American Bible Society noted, "The English Bible as left by the translators has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text." (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, New York: 1852, p.7). Since the text deals with the "words," what significance does your question have? Calligraphy, orthography, punctuation, and correction of a few errors produced by subsequent printers deals nothing with the fact that the text has remained unaltered. (BTW, the four revisions were in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769).
QUESTION: Can you document your claim that KJV supporters believe the KJV to be inspired? I am interested in having names and quotes from those in the leadership of this movement who call the KJV "inspired."
>2. What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend before (sic) before 1611 there was no Bible.
I think what you meant to write was, "What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend, since before 1611 there was no Bible?" If I have misrepresented your question here, please forgive me. I myself sometimes make typographical errors when writing and I do not want to misrepresent what you are asking. If this is the question, I shall endeavor to address it.
We do not worship the KJV; we worship the Lord God. Nonetheless, we do have a high regard for the word of the Lord even as the Lord Himself does. In Psalm 138:2 the Bible says: "I will worship toward thy holy temple, and praise thy name for thy lovingkindness and for thy truth: for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name." I do not think one could draw from this that God worships His word, but He does honor it above His own name. Even modern versions, such as the RSV, which change this passage recognize that the Hebrew reads just as it is translated in the KJV (see RSV footnote). Again, because of the honor and respect the Lord gives to His word, this is an issue of preservation.
The doctrine of Biblical preservation would demand the word of God before 1611. We believe the word of God has never passed away from the time of its inception (Matthew 24:35). Perhaps you are really asking, "Where was it before 1611?" That I do not know. But then again, I do not know where the original autographs are either. We do not have to have the preserved words from 325 AD, 870 AD or 1009 AD anymore than we have to have the original manuscripts in order to believe in Biblical preservation. But we must have the preserved word of God without error TODAY if we are to believe in Biblical preservation. To misunderstand this point is to misrepresent the entire issue of the KJV. If argumentation is based on misunderstanding and misrepresentation, than there is no basis for an opposing position.
QUESTION: If you believe in Biblical preservation, where are these preserved words today? Do we have all of these preserved words? If not, why not?
>3. Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
How delightfully degrading. I am not sure if this was meant in jest or if the question is simply disingenuous. It would be rather interesting if you could provide a source from some "KJV advocate" who proclaimed such a thing. However, since we do not believe such an absurdity I am forced to believe the question is refractory. If I may, please allow me to carry the thought a little further. You do realize, do you not, that the apostle Paul did not use a single one of the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts which are now in existence. With the exception of some of the manuscripts found at Qumran, all the known Biblical manuscripts postdate the apostles. And yet, they are often cited by modern scholarship as if they were the originals themselves.
QUESTION: How do you explain the fact the earliest manuscripts (P66 and P75) are not purely Alexandrian in nature? What is your explanation of the readings found in them which support the KJV over against modern versions? (Pl ease consult the apparatus of the United Bible Societies Greek Text or that of the Nestle-Aland Greek Test for examples.)
>4. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
Who rejects the Apocrypha? I most certainly do not, nor did the translators of the Authorized Version or any other early English version reject it. Martin Luther did not reject it. Calvin did not reject it. The Reformers did not reject it. However, rejecting it and not accepting it as holy scripture are two different things. The Apocrypha is not to be rejected because it contains valuable historical records of the time between the Testaments. This does not mean that we must accept it as having been given by inspiration. Since historical books were not in abundance for the common man in the 17th century, it was the practice of Bible translators to include the Apocrypha between the Old and New Testaments for purposes of historical record. This is illustrated in the preface to the Apocrypha of the Geneva Bible and the various notations provided by the KJV translators.
Further, two of the most important Greek manuscripts for modern textual criticism are Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus. Vaticanus contains all of the Apocrypha with the exception of 1 and 2 Maccabees and the Prayer of Manasses. Sinaiticus contains all of the Old Testament Apocrypha books as well as the Epistle of Barnabas and the Shepherd of Hermas in the New Testament. (see A General Introduction To The Bible, by Geisler and Nix, Moody Press, pp.271-274; or The Text Of The New Testament, by Aland, Eerdmans Press, pp.107-109.)
QUESTION: Since the Greek texts of Vaticanus and Sinaiticus contain the Apocrypha as part of its text, and these two manuscripts are used for the basis of most modern Greek texts and English translations, is not your question a little misleading? Why would you reject the original KJV for having the Apocrypha between the Testaments while accepting ancient uncial manuscripts which contained the Apocrypha as part of the text?
>5. 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!
As a point of reference, this is not a question. It is a comment.
>6. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
This, in my opinion, is a good question. I will ignore the comment here and elsewhere about the KJV being "inspired" because I have already addressed this in the first question. I think there are two questions here. One asks why would God not provide for us in English a modern translation which is as preserved as the King James version is. The other asks why would God not provide for other nations His preserved word without error as He did in English, if the KJV is to be taken as the preserved word of God.
Briefly, the KJV is a modern English translation and there is no need to reduplicate the process of Biblical preservation. In time, if God so wills, He may preserve another translation and bless it as He has the Authorized Version (however, with the nearness of the hour it seems rather doubtful). After all, it is God's book and He is permitted to do whatever He wishes with it in whatever language He chooses. As for the second part of the question dealing with other languages, again the Lord most certainly can do so. In fact, He very well may have. I will not limit God, as textual scholars have done, in saying He is unable to provide for us or anyone His perfectly preserved words. I will say that if God does so, He will bear testimony to such even as He has done with the King James Bible.
Old English dates from 700 to 1100 AD. Middle English dates from 1100 to 1500. Modern English dates from 1500 to the present. Old English Handbook, by Anderson and Williams, Houghton Mifflin Company, pp.6-7.
QUESTION: What language today is considered the international language, and why would God not use this language in preserving His words and spreading the gospel?
>7. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Why would He need to? We have the preserved words of God for the English-speaking people without demanding that every single publisher produce every printed edition of the KJV without error. For example, if a reader skips a word or a phrase this does not mean the text is in error. Likewise, just because a printer does the same does not mean the KJV is in error.
QUESTION: Why would God give us His word inerrantly and then lose it?
>8. 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!
This is a broad subject and should have individual examples in order to establish your point. Nevertheless, the translators addressed this in their preface:
"There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, & c., concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgement, that they may seem to have definded this or that, rather because they would say something, that because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatized upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgement of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin where the text is not so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded." (Dr. Miles Smith in the original preface of the KJV).
QUESTION: How does the use of marginal notes alter the text itself?
>9. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
They were not inspired. But they were led, directed, and blessed by God. Dr. G. S. Paine noted:
"Though we may challenge the idea of word-by-word inspiration, we surely must conclude that these were men able, in their profound moods, to transcend their human limits. In their own words, they spake as no other men spake because they were filled with the Holy Ghost. Or, in the clumsier language of our time, they so adjusted themselves to each other and to the work as to achieve a unique coordination and balance, functioning thereafter as an organic entity--no mere mechanism equal to the sum of its parts, but a whole greater than all of them." (The Men Behind The King James Version, Baker Book House, p.173).
In the original preface the translators themselves stated, ". . . through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see." They also stated, "And this is the Word of God, which we translate." In the final paragraph of their preface they wrote:
"It remaineth that we commend thee to God, and to the Spirit of His grace, which is able to build further than we can ask or think. He removeth the scales from our eyes, the veil form our hearts, opening our wits that we may understand His Word, enlarging our hearts, yea, correcting our affections, that we may love it above gold and silver, yea, that we may love it to the end."
QUESTION: If the KJV translators were not led of God to produce their translation, how do you explain the enormous impact and consequent spiritual blessing the KJV has had on English-speaking Christians and our culture as a whole?
>10. 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."?
Thomas Nelson Publishers have reproduced the KJV with all of the above. However I fail to see what any of this has to do with the issue at hand. Biblical preservation does not deal with marginal notes, the Apocrypha, the Dedicatory, or the Preface. It deals with the words of scripture. The Romans had a saying, "cum videbis, tum scies" (when you see, then you will know). This deals with the fact that sometimes we are so busy disproving a position that we fail to see the fallaciousness of our own argumentation.
QUESTION: Can you explain how the above question, which you have proposed, has any relevance to the doctrine of Biblical preservation?
>11. 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?
Could not the same be said of ANY English translation? For example, the NASV is based on the 23rd edition of the Nestle Greek New Testament, and yet there are places where this English translation does not match its Greek text. The same can be said of the NIV in that it uses an eclectic text and thereby gathers its translation from several modern Greek texts without agreeing 100% with any given one.
QUESTION: Do you know the difference between a Greek text and a Greek manuscript? If so, do you understand why they differ? Do you know the name and edition of the main Greek text which underlined the English translation of the KJV? (Strictly speaking, the name "Textus Receptus" was applied to the 2nd edition of the Elzevir editions in 1633, about 20 years after the translation of 1611).
>12. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
Two reasons. The first deals with understanding languages. When you translate from one language into another it may take more than one word to provide the proper translation. For example in Greek the phrase, "o luon" can be translated as "the man who loses" or "the one who loses." Literally, it simply means, "the losing". The noun "man" is understood because "luon" is a masculine noun. Therefore, in the translation, the word "man" could stand in italics. The words have still been preserved because the gender is understood in the Greek noun, whereas in English we have to use an additional noun in describing gender.
The second reason is because the Greek and Hebrew texts are sometimes missing words themselves due to age or copyist error (thus proving Biblical preservation does not lie with the original languages). Let me illustrate with an example from both Testaments. In Acts 1:13 we have the phrase, ". . . and Judas the brother of James". The phrase "the brother" is in italics. Modern versions translate this as, ". . . and Judas the son of James." The translators of the KJV were informing the reader that the Greek does not have the phrase "the brother" (likewise, it does not have the phrase "the son"). The Greek reads, "Ioudas Iakobou" (Judas of James). Modern translators simply take this to mean Judas was James' son because he was "of James." However, the KJV translators compared scripture with scripture. The English names Judas and Jude are the same name, and in Jude 1 we again have the Greek phrase, "Ioudas . . . Iakobou". However here all translations read, "Jude. . . the brother of James." This is because the Greek word for brother (adelphos) appears in the text. The KJV translators were letting you know that the "Ioudas" of James in Acts 1:13 was the same "Ioudas" of James in Jude 1.
Another example comes from the Hebrew text as found in 2 Samuel 21:19. Here the KJV uses the italics in the phrase, "the brother of". It does so because the existing Hebrew manuscripts are lacking at this point. If the phrase "the brother of" is not added, the verse would falsely state that Elhanan slew Goliath as most modern versions read. However we know that Elhanan did not kill Goliath; David did. The KJV translators correctly add the italics in order to produce the legitimate reading. This agrees with 1 Chron. 20:5 where we are told the same without the italics or the missing Hebrew. Thus, concerning this verse, the preserved word is found in the English translation of the KJV and not the existing Hebrew manuscripts or texts.
QUESTION: In 2 Samuel 21:19, which translation is Biblically correct; the KJV or modern versions?
>13. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an old english dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Interesting. To answer the question, I do not think the use of an "old english dictionary" would be helpful. The reason is noted in the following Biblical quotation:
"He cwaeo, Soolice sum man hadfed twegen suna. Pa cwaeo se gingra to his faeder, 'Faeder, syle me minne deal minre aehte pe me to gebyrep.' Pa daelde he him his aehte."
This is an example of "old English" taken from an early English translation of the Gospel of Luke. It should be noted that old English dates from 700 to 1100 AD, and is completely uncomprehensible by today's usage. In fact, old English needs to be translated into modern English in order for us to understand what is being said. When we do so, the quotation reads as follows:
"And he said, 'A certain man had two sons: And the younger of them said to his father, Father, give me the portion of goods that falleth to me, And he divided unto them his living." (Luke 15:11-12).
Perhaps the real question is this: "Should we use a dictionary in order to understand certain words found in the KJV which we do not know?" Yes, by all means. I use a dictionary when I do not understand a word I find in my other "casual" readings. Why not do the same with the Bible? After all, the purpose of a dictionary is to clarify the meaning of certain words.
Please allow me to point out that a difficult term or phrase can be found in just about anything we read (depending upon the understanding of the reader). For example, note the following difficult verses:
"The Nephilim were on the earth in those days." (Genesis 6:4) "Waheb in Suphah and the ravines." (Numb. 21:14) "the Praetorium" (Matthew 27:27)
These are just a few examples of some difficult readings. However, they are not from the KJV. Instead, these difficult readings come from the NIV. This does not mean the NIV is more difficult to read than the KJV, or that the KJV is easier to read than the NIV. It simply means that difficult readings can be found in ANY translation.
Further, as far as readability is concerned, a study conducted at Texas' A & M University found the KJV had a 12.00 grade reading level. This means any senior in high school should be able to read the KJV and understand what is being said. The NIV received a grade reading level of 7.80. This means it is written on a junior high level. Is it too much to ask that our Bible is written on a level which any high school graduate could read and understand? (The study is documented in, All About Bibles, by John R. Kohlenberger III, Oxford University Press, p. 12).
One other quote is worth noting here. In their 1986 book, The Story Of English, Drs. Robert McCrum, William Cran, and Robert MacNeil wrote of the difference between Shakespeare's last play (The Tempest) and the Authorized Version of the Bible:
"Both the play and the Bible are masterpieces of English, but there is one crucial difference between them. Whereas Shakespeare ransacked the lexicon, the King James Bible employs a bare 8,000 words--God's teaching in homely English for everyman." (Vicking Press, p.113).
Additionally, the Interactive Bible Study lists "436 Archaic terms!" found in the KJV. Please allow me to discuss this for a moment. First, many of the words listed are not archaic because they are nouns. Names of persons, places, or things are far from being "archaic" (if we take the word archaic to mean outdated) unless the names have changed. Even then it may not be wise to change or update the nouns. For example, when the RV of 1881 and the ASV of 1901 were translated, there was no nation of Israel. The nation of Israel had not existed for 1800 years. Yet to remove "Israel" from the Bible would be irrational. Likewise, it would be just as inane to remove nouns such as "Shiloh" or to list them as archaic. (By the way, when listing the word "Shiloh" as archaic the reference of Genesis 49:10 is given. However contemporary versions such as the NASV, NKJV, and even TLB use the word "Shiloh" in that verse. Others, such as the RSV, NRSV, and NIV, allow for the reading in their footnotes. Further, I could not begin to name all the churches which use "Shiloh" as part of their name. Our local phone book is filled with them. Strange thing if the word is truly archaic.)
Second, some of the examples used are Greek words which have been transliterated into English. For example, the lists states that "Omega" is archaic and references it with Revelation 1:8,11. The Greek letter "Omega" is the last letter of the Greek alphabet. The passage cited uses both "Alpha" and "Omega" and yet "Alpha" is not placed on the list. Are we to believe that the first letter of the Greek alphabet is not archaic, but the last letter is?
Third, many others listed are still in common use. The word "Exorcist," for example, is cited as being archaic (the Bible reference used here is Acts 19:13.) In Acts chapter nineteen we find that these "exorcists" were individuals who cast out evil spirits which indwelled other individuals. Yet in the 1970's there was a movie which was about a Catholic priest who cast out demons. It was called, "The Exorcist." Either the word is not as archaic as listed or it has become archaic in the last few years. Or, what is more likely, the compiler of the list has exaggerated the facts and amplified the list in order to try and prove the KJV is an archaic translation which no one could possibly understand today. The real truth is that it is not as archaic as what the article has suggested and far more readable than presented.
Perhaps, with words we do not understand, a dictionary is a good thing to have. Should we not seek to better ourselves as ambassador for Christ while living in this world? An illustration may serve to prove a point here. In some lists of outdated words, the word "wont" is cited. The word means "customary" and is used 9 times in the KJV. Yet, in the 1995 science fiction book, Star Trek The Next Generation: Balance of Power, the author writes:
"The next morning, Commander Riker arrived at the ready room fifteen minutes early, as was his wont; he was surprised to see Wesley Crusher already waiting." (by Dafydd Ab Huge (aka Peter David), p.261).
Wouldn't it be a shame if the casual readers of science fiction had a better understanding of our language than the readers of Holy scripture?
QUESTION: A recent survey from the American Bible Society showed that 2/3rds of those who said they read the Bible, claimed the KJV as their translation of choice (see "Buy the Book" by Jennifer Lowe as cited in the Dayton Daily News [Ohio], Sept. 16, 1995, p.7c). If the KJV is so hard to read and understand, why does it remain the standard English translation for the common man and the most loved and read version of the Bible?
>14. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copywriting the work of each translation when they copywrite 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 copywrited Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copywrited" then why do they copy write their defences of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
This is an exaggeration. Admittedly, there are those who use this argument. For myself, I tend to agree with you in that I fail to see the value of arguing copyright laws since any modern version once it reaches the age of the KJV will no longer be under copyright. I do not use this argument. In fact, I have only seen this argument used in very limited sources and not a main argument used by the supporters of the KJV. Yet, it is presented as if it were. Why make such a statement when it fails to apply to most of us who support the KJV? Is this not another example of misrepresenting the issue?
QUESTION: Since the basis of your question deals with consistency, please allow me to ask you a question on this very thing. In 2 Corinthians 2:17 the KJV reads, "For we are not as many, which corrupt the word of God." However, modern versions read, "we are not as many which peddle the word of God" meaning to sale it for a profit (see NIV, NRSV, NASV, or NKJV). Yet, the publishers of these versions sell their translation for a profit. Is this consistent? If you are concerned about consistency how can you support modern version which state they are not like many who "peddle" the word of God while peddling it?
>15. Is it not rediculous to suggest that when the TR dissagrees 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)
This question not only reflects a misrepresentation of those of us who support the KJV, but also misrepresents the science of textual criticism. If I may illustrate, the NASV and the RSV are basically translated from the same Greek text, Nestle's Novum Testamentum Graece (see The English Bible: From KJV to NIV, by Dr. Jack Lewis, Baker Book House, p. 111.). Yet, there are differences in translation and in use of the text itself. For example, the NASV omits 16 verses as they stand in the KJV, but the RSV omits 46 verses. By comparing such textual differences and the many translational differences between the NASV and RSV one can plainly see that at least one group of translators differed from its respected Greek text. Yet, these translators believed they were correct regardless of the reading found (or not found) in the Greek text of Nestle. This does not mean that they "worshipped" their various translation. It does mean that they made textual choices which differed from that of Eberhard Nestle.
So it is with the different Greek editions which have been grouped as the Textus Receptus Greek Text. There are some textual differences between the Greek texts of Desiderius Erasmus, Theodore Beza, Robert Estienne (or Stephanus), and the Elzevir brothers. These are textual choices. Greek texts come from Greek manuscripts (and other manuscripts) to form a certain Greek text. Because manuscripts differ, Greek texts differ. These are textual choices. The KJV translators sometimes chose the Greek text of Stephanus over the text of Beza. Sometimes, based on textual choices, they even rejected the standard Greek texts in favor of a different reading (as most translators do). This is not translational worship . . . its textual criticism.
QUESTION: The above question deals with the issue of final authority. "KJV Only advocates" believe the KJV is their final authority in all matters of faith and practice because we believe it to be the preserved word of God. What is your final authority? If it is the "Greek Text", which Greek text is it? Do you ever correct it? If so, how is it your FINAL authority?
>16. 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?
You may want to correct your site concerning this statement. Here you claim the KJV was based on Greek manuscripts which are not "earlier than the 10th century". Yet, in your "Introductory note:" we find that the TR and KJV were based on manuscripts; ". . . none earlier than the 12th century." This could cause confusion to your reader.
Yet another misrepresentation, the TR and the KJV reflect the Byzantine line of manuscripts, also called the Traditional Text. The question leaves the impression that there is no textual support for the KJV before the 10th or 12th century. This, however, is not the case.
>From the 9th century we have Codex Boreelianus (09), Codex Seidelianus (011), Codex Seidelianus (013), Codex Cyprius (017), Codex Mosquensis (018), Codex Angelicus (020) and Codex Campianus- all of which are Byzantine type manuscripts and support the TR and KJV. And there are many, many more besides these.
>From the 8th and 7th centuries we have Codex Basilensis, Princeton's 047, and the Institute for Manuscripts' 0211 located in Germany. These are Byzantine type manuscripts.
>From the 6th century we find Codex Petropolitanus Purpuresus (022), Codex Sinopensis (023), Codex Guelferbytanus A (024), Codex Nitriensis (027), Codex Rossanensis (042), Codex Beratinus (043), and 0253 (formerly of Damascus), just to name a few which are Byzantine.
And even from the 5th century we have Codex Guelferbytanus B (026) which is likewise Byzantine. Not to mention the Byzantine readings we find in other manuscripts and Byzantine type readings found among the early papyri manuscripts. (see Aland, pp. 107-128).
QUESTION: How do you explain the Byzantine (TR/KJV) manuscripts and readings which pre-date the 10th century?
>17. 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 English - a translation of a translation?
The "TR" has the last 6 verses of Revelation in it. It is found in the editions of Erasmus, Beza, Stephanus, and the Elzevir brothers.
Codex 1r, which was used by Erasmus, was missing Revelation 22:16-21. The standard teaching is that Erasmus went back to the Latin Vulgate for these verses and re-translated them into Greek. However, Dr. H. C. Hoskier disagreed by demonstrating that Erasmus used the Greek manuscript 141 which contained the verses. (Concerning The Text Of The Apocalypse, London: Quaritch, 1929, vol. 1, pp. 474-77, vol. 2, pp. 454,635.) Regardless, the textual support for these verses are not limited to the Latin Vulgate. They are also found in the Old Latin manuscripts, additional early translations (such as the Coptic, Syriac, Armenian, and Ethiopic), and some later Greek manuscripts.
Regarding the Greek, it should be pointed out that even today there is not a great deal of textual support for the verses in question. For example, of the early papyri there are no manuscripts of Revelation 22 (or for that matter of Revelation chapters 18-22). Further, among the uncials, only five have Revelation chapter 22, and only four of these contain the last six verses (Sinaiticus, Alexandrinus, 046, and 051). There are several minuscules which have been discovered which contain these verses (94, 1611, 1854, 1859, 2042, and 2138 to name a few).
Among the witnesses, we find that many of them agree with the Latin witnesses. For example, Sinaiticus and Codex A read in verse 21, "kuriou Iesou" (Lord Jesus) while the Latin reads "Domini nostri Iesu Christi." To support the Latin reading we have the Greek mss 205, 254, and 2067 all of which read, "kuriou hemon Iesou Xristou" (our Lord Jesus Christ). Also, we find that 046, 051, 94, 1006, 1854, 2020, 2042, 2065, 2073, 2138, and 2433 read "kuriou Iesou Xristou" (Lord Jesus Christ), thus omitting "hemon" but still maintaining "Xristou". Hence, we have the reading, "of our Lord Jesus Christ" (KJV) supported by Greek manuscripts, the Old Latin, the Vulgate, as well as the early versions (Sariac and Armenian). This seems to give weight to Erasmus' Greek reading.
Of course, the biggest "change" comes in verse 19. Dr. Hoskier has shown that Greek mss 57 and 141 read with the Latin in stating "book of life" and not "tree of life" as found in Sinaiticus and most other Greek mss. There are, of course, other witnesses to the reading found in the KJV here. For example, the Old Bohairic Coptic version also reads "book of life." Additionally, we have patristic citations from Ambrose, Bachiarius, and Primasius. Thus, we have evidence of the KJV reading dating from before the Vulgate and maintained throughout Church history in a variety of geographical locations and various languages.
QUESTION: The objection raised against the KJV here is that the last few verses of Revelation are not found in the Greek (which it is) but taken from the Latin Vulgate. Yet, modern versions often reject the Hebrew text in the Old Testament in favor of the Greek reading found in the Septuagint (see the footnotes in either the RSV or NRSV). If it is proper for scholars to forsake the Hebrew for the Greek Septuagint, why would you think it improper for the scholars of the KJV to forsake the Greek in favor of other early languages?
>18. 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 wrough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
Since there are three questions here, please allow me to address each one separately. First is asked, "Why do KJV only advocates believe that the english of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts?" Textual scholar Sir Fedreric Kenyon wrote, "It is the simple truth that, as literature, the English Authorized Version is superior to the original Greek" (The Story of the Bible, p. 42.). A few weeks ago I was in a public debate with Professor James R. White (author of The King James Only Controversy) concerning the KJV and Biblical preservation. During the debate I used this quote by Kenyon. White responded by stating that he did not want something that was "superior" to the "original" autographs. Instead, he wanted something which read just like the original autographs. However, if truth be know, this would not do for either Professor White or just about anyone else.
If one cannot read Greek the autographs are of little value. If one can read Greek, the way the oldest manuscripts were written would make it hard to read and understand. After all, they were written without punctuation or word division in capital letters. For example, 2 Timothy 3:16 would look something like this:
PASAGPAPHETHEOPNEUSTOSKAIOPHELIMOSPROSDIDASKALIANPR
OSELEGMONPROSEPANOPTHWSINPROSPAIDEIANTENENDIKAIOSUNI
However, I think we can agree that the English is far easier to read and understand. Therefore, it is clearer and more precise. Or in Kenyon's words, "superior."
The second question here is, "Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an 'archaic English' dictionary?" They should not. Who suggests that they should? Please provide some quotation and documentation.
Finally, the question asks: "Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey?" And yet, you then provide an English translation of the Greek word "PHRISSO." I have no problem in listing or showing word pictures found in either Greek or Hebrew. These can be very helpful indeed. But this has little to do with the issue at hand.
Further, the example cited of "agape" and "phileo" offer no additional help. Both mean "love." Most translational scholars argue that "agape" is a godly type of love, while "phileo" is a friendship. Yet, we find these two words used interchangeably in the Greek New Testament. The passage in John 21:15-17 is a prime example. Both "agape" and "phileo" are used in the text. However, Peter is not grieved because Christ changes "agape" to "phileo" in response to how Peter was using it. Instead, he was "grieved because he said unto him the third time, Lovest thou me?" (vs. 17).
QUESTION: Passages such as Revelation 3:19; John 16:27; and John 20:2 speak of a love which comes from God. According to the above argument, the Greek word used here should be "agape" because it means a godly love. Yet, in all Greek texts the word used is "phileo" (friendship). Why is this so if the Greek provides a "clearer and more precise" meaning of the words?
>19. 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, Isaiah 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.)
The KJV translators did not make all the chapter headings, many of them are found in very old manuscripts themselves (see The Text And Canon Of The New Testament, by Alexander Souter, pp. 205-237). Nevertheless, the point raised again misrepresents the views of those of us who support the KJV. We believe in Biblical preservation of the W-O-R-D-S of scripture, not the chapter headings and notes of translators.
QUESTION: My final question is a repetition of another I asked at the beginning. If you believe in Biblical preservation, where is this preserved Bible you believe in? I have one I read daily. One I can produce and have put to the test. One which I allow to correct me and not one I have to correct.
One final note. The section which follows these 29 questions is labeled "Undis putable, universally recognized errors in the KJV." Perhaps at a later time we can discuss these so-called errors. For now I simply wish to make two points. First, the verses in question are not indisputable. In fact, I have disputed some of them on my own web page. Some of the other verses, likewise, have been disputed in other web sites I have seen. Therefore, they are far from confirmed "errors." Secondly, your site lists these as, "Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:". Within the list we find Isaiah 14:12 as an "error." 1 Samuel 10:24, 2 Samuel 16:16, and 1 Kings 1:25 as being in error in the KJV. Also, Leviticus 6:21, 8:28, 17:6, 23:18 are in "error" as is 1 Kings 20:38. However, you may wish to make a change in your protest. None of these verses are found in the "Textus Receptus." The TR is a Greek text of the New Testament. All these verses come from the Old Testament and therefore deal with the Hebrew Masoretic Text.
I hope that you do find time to respond to my questions as well as defend your own statements. Until such time, God bless as you labor for Him.
Yours in Christ Jesus,
Thomas Holland, Th.D.
Psalm 118:8
HOME PAGE: Logos 1611
| HOME | INDEX | BIBLE STUDY | MSS EVIDENCE | MSS CLASS | DOWN LOAD |
Below are the remaining 10 questions from the IBS's section entitled: "Questions for 'KJV only' advocates." Your assignment is as follows: If the student supports the KJV, they are to respond to at least 3 to 5 of these 10 remaining questions. If the student supports modern versions, they are asked to respond to at least 3 to 5 of the questions I raised in my open letter to the IBS. Students are free to choose any of the questions of their choice in responding. Responses should be e-mailed to me at Logos1611@aol.com. If the student wishes, they may also send a copy to others in the class as listed in the roster. As with all assignments, this is voluntary. The remaining 10 questions found in the IBS are listed below.
>20. 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"?
>21. 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 irrifutible evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
>22. 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?
>23. 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?
>24. If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish beween "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: Revelation 20:14)
>25. Why would KJV translators render Genesis 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Romans 4:3, 9, 22; Galatians 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
>26. Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definate and indefinate 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 definate article was also added to the centurion's confession in Mt 27:54.)
>27. 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 Revelation 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
>28. 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)
>29. How do you explain the gramatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isaiah 6:2 where the translators made a rare gramatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
Back to Class Assignment Back to Doc Holland's Index
 Sojourners of the Lord Home Page
|
Bible Studies, Articles, Links, More... |
|
Sojourners' King James Bible Page
|
Large Collection of Manuscript Evidence |
|
Sojourners' NoteTabbers' Page
|
Loaded with Libraries, Clips, and Images... |
|
Sojourners' Site Index
|
Listing of Most Pages on All Sites |
| Sites Brought to You by Sojourners of the Lord | |
| Sojourners' Bible Study | Rightly dividing the word of truth |
| Sojourners' King James Bible | Information on Bible Versions |
| Sojourners' Clean-Funnies dot com | Many Clean Jokes; a Must Visit. |
| Sojourners' NoteTabbers Assistant | Great Stuff for Great Editors |
| Sojourners' Fookes Software.us | Software Doesn't Get Any Better! |
| Sojourners Software | Excellent Shareware and Freeware |
| Sojourners of the Lord | Flagship Sojourners of the Lord |