|
NON-RUCKMANITE ANSWERS TO ANTI-KJV
QUESTIONS
Jeffrey Khoo
Preamble
Gary Hudson has a set of questions against the King James Bible
as published in the internet (http://members.aol.com/pilgrimpub/questkjv.htm).
His questionnaire entitled, “Questions for the KJV-Only Cult,” is actually
directed at Ruckmanites. Unfortunately, Hudson did not care to clarify
that the majority of KJV advocates are not of the Ruckmanite origin or
stripe. Many readers do go away confused, thinking that all defenders of
the King James Bible are “Ruckmanites” and “heretics.”
It must be underscored that Bible believers and KJV defenders
like Edward F Hills, David Otis Fuller, D A Waite, Ian Paisley, David
Cloud, Timothy Tow, the Trinitarian Bible Society, the Dean Burgon
Society, and the Far Eastern Bible College do NOT
espouse at all the beliefs of Ruckman that:
(1) the
KJV is doubly inspired;
(2) the
KJV is advanced revelation;
(3) the
English KJV is as or more inspired than the original language Scriptures;
(4) the
KJV can be used to correct the original language Scriptures;
(5)
there is no need whatsoever to study the Biblical languages of Hebrew,
Aramaic and Greek due to an “inspired” English translation;
(6) the
KJV cannot be improved on (The Defined King James Bible edited by D
A Waite and S H Tow and published by Bible For Today is certainly an
improvement on the KJV);
(7) the
KJV is the only Bible that has gospel or salvific content;
(8)
those who do not use the KJV are condemned to hell; and
(9) all
non-English speaking believers must learn English to know the Truth.
Nevertheless, Hudson’s questions have created enough
misinformation on and misrepresentation of the King James Bible and the
majority of its advocates that a response is necessary. Below are Hudson’s
questions followed by my answers from a KJV-superiority perspective.
Answers to Questions
(1) 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?
We believe that “the King James Version (or Authorised Version)
of the English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of
these two providentially preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew
Text and Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has
no equal among all of the other English Translations. The translators did
such a fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold
up the Authorised Version and say ‘This is the Word of God!’ while at the
same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the
underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare
Scripture with Scripture.” (The Dean Burgon Society, “Articles of
Faith,” section II.A.)
Every Bible translation can be legitimately called “the Word of
God” if it is true and faithful to the original and traditional text. We
refuse to consider heretical Bibles like the New World Translation of the
Jehovah’s Witnesses as “the Word of God.” We also reject as unreliable all
Bible versions (eg NIV, TEV, TLB, CEV …) that are a result of the dynamic
equivalence method of translation, and those (eg RSV, NASB, ESV …) that
cast doubt and/or omit verses based on corrupted readings of the
Alexandrian or Westcott-Hort Text, and consider them unsafe for use.
Where was the Word of God prior to 1611? Well, the Word of God
is found in the divinely inspired and perfectly preserved Traditional Text
of OT and NT Scriptures used and recognised by the Church down through the
ages, and in all the faithful and reliable translations that were based on
those Texts, viz, Martin Luther’s German Bible (1522), William Tyndale’s
Bible (1525), Myles Coverdale’s Bible (1535), The Matthew’s Bible (1537),
The Great Bible (1539-41), and The Geneva Bible (1557-60).
It is significant to note that prior to the KJV,
the English translations were largely individual efforts. The KJV on the
other hand is a corporate work. In the words of the translators, the KJV
was not produced “to make a bad one a good one; but to make a good one
better, or out of many good ones one principal good one.” For this purpose
and with such devotion the KJV translation committee was formed, and they
were careful to “assemble together; not too many, lest one should trouble
another; and yet many, lest many things haply might escape them.”
The King James Bible is a product of the 16th
Century Protestant Reformation. The special providential hand of God was
clearly at work at the time of the Reformation not only in the separation
of the true church from the false church, but also in the invention of the
printing press, the renewed interest in the study of the original
languages, the identification of the purest Greek Text (Textus Receptus)
which became the source text for the KJV. These products of the Protestant
Reformation bear the divine imprimatur.
God holds His people in every age responsible for using the
divinely inspired and preserved original texts and only the faithful and
accurate translations of His Word. The KJV-superiority position
does not limit the Word of God to only one 17th Century English
Translation, but advocates that the KJV, being still the most accurate
English translation based on the purest texts, should be the only Bible
used by English-speaking Christians today. To use other Bibles when the
best is clearly available would be to neglect our responsibility.
(2) Were the KJV translators “liars” for
saying that “the meanest translation” is still “the word of God”?
The 1611 Preface of the KJV is often used by anti-KJVists
to support the corrupt modern versions. They argue that in that Preface
the KJV translators themselves viewed even the worst English versions as
the Word of God. Did the KJV translators really say that every translation
of the Bible even if filled with grammatical, translational, or doctrinal
errors could be rightly called the Word of God? They certainly did not.
The context in which they wrote those words clearly reveals this: “Now to
the latter we answer, that we do not deny, nay, we affirm and avow, that
the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by
men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible
as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God: as the King’s
speech which he uttered in parliament, being translated into French,
Dutch, Italian, and Latin, is still the King’s speech, though it be not
interpreted by every translator with the like grace.”
It is clear that by the word “meanest” they do not mean “worst”
(ie “evil in the highest degree”). Who would dare mistranslate the king’s
speech? Clearly they were not talking about sense but style. By
“meanest” they meant poor in literary grace. When beginning Greek
students translate their Greek Bible into English, it may be rough and
wooden; but if literal and precise, it is the Word of God. The KJV
translators, some of whom were Puritans, certainly did not humour wicked
or corrupt versions. It is utterly ridiculous and absurd to suggest that
they did.
The KJV translators were certainly not “liars,” but anti-KJVists
have put words into their mouths to make them mean what they did not mean
by “meanest” in a mean attempt to demean the pro-KJV position.
(3) Do you believe that the Hebrew and
Greek used for the KJV are the word of God?
Yes, we believe
in the divine, Verbal Plenary Inspiration and Verbal Plenary Preservation
of the Scriptures in the original languages, their consequent inerrancy
and infallibility, and as the perfect Word of God, the Supreme and final
authority in faith and life (2 Tim 3:16; 2 Pet 1:20-21; Ps 12:6-7; Matt
5:18, 24:35). We believe the Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New
Testament underlying the Authorised (King James) Version to be the very
Word of God, infallible and inerrant.
(4) Do you believe that the Hebrew and
Greek underlying the KJV can “correct” the English?
Yes, we believe that the inspired, infallible and inerrant
Hebrew and Greek words underlying the KJV can correct the mistranslations
of the modern English Bibles which use the corrupt Westcott-Hort Text, and
use the dynamic equivalence method of translation.
We do not believe that the King James translators have
been at all careless in their translation of their Bible, but do recognise
that when interpreting difficult verses, we need to consult the underlying
Hebrew and Greek texts in order to shed light on the full or complete
meaning of a word, verse or passage. We affirm with the Dean Burgon
Society that “the King James Version (or Authorised Version) of the
English Bible is a true, faithful, and accurate translation of these two
providentially preserved Texts [Traditional Masoretic Hebrew Text and
Traditional Greek Text underlying the KJV], which in our time has no equal
among all of the other English Translations. The translators did such a
fine job in their translation task that we can without apology hold up the
Authorised Version of 1611 and say ‘This is the Word of God!’ while at the
same time realising that, in some verses, we must go back to the
underlying original language Texts for complete clarity, and also compare
Scripture with Scripture.” (The Dean Burgon Society, “Articles of
Faith,” section II.A).
(5) Do you believe that the English of the KJV “corrects” its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was
translated?
No, we do not believe that the English of the KJV corrects its
own Hebrew and Greek Text. How can it do so, since it is derived from its
very own original language text? The original Scriptures in Hebrew and
Greek can and should never be corrected by any translation whether
English, Chinese, Korean, Indonesian, or any other language. We
categorically reject Ruckman’s heretical view that the English KJV is
“more inspired” than the original Hebrew and Greek Scriptures that
underlie it.
(6) Is any translation “inspired”? Is the KJV an “inspired translation”?
God “inspired” or “breathed out” (Qeopneusto",
2 Tim 3:16) His words in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Strictly speaking,
the divinely inspired words were the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words God
gave to His Prophets and Apostles to pen the Holy Scriptures.
What is the relation between the inspired text and its derived
translation? By way of illustration, the original language Scripture
underlying the KJV is like the perfect platinum yardstick of the
Smithsonian Institute, infallible, inerrant, authoritative. The KJV and
other accurate and reliable translations are like the common yardstick,
though not 100% are good and safe enough for use. Although there may be a
need to consult the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts especially when
interpreting difficult verses, we do not believe that the King James
translators were in any way careless in translating their Bible. The same
however cannot be said of the modern versions—they are definitely shorter
by many inches and far too unreliable.
(7) Is the KJV “scripture?” Is it “given by
inspiration of God” (2 Tim 3:16)?
The KJV as a translation was not “given by inspiration of God.”
“All Scripture” (pasa grafh) of 2
Timothy 3:16 refers to the original Hebrew, Aramaic OT and Greek NT words
that God had “breathed out” without any error or mistake. These divinely
inspired words in the original languages are infallible and inerrant and
cannot be corrected, improved upon or changed in any way.
The English words of the KJV are translated words. But
since the English words in the KJV are so accurately and faithfully
translated from the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words, we can
confidently declare the KJV to be “the Word of God,” and “Holy Scripture,”
and thus “profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for
instruction in righteousness: that the man of God may be perfect,
throughly furnished unto all good works” (2 Tim 3:16-17).
(8) When was the KJV “given by inspiration
of God”? – 1611 … or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629,
1638, 1644, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
The KJV was first published in 1611. However, there were revisions that
followed soon after; all of which were completed by 1629. The revisions
that occurred between 1611 and 1638 were due to printing errors. The KJV
translators themselves, namely, Samuel Ward and John Bois, corrected these
errors. In the course of typesetting, the printers had inadvertently left
out words or phrases; all such manifest typographical errors had been
corrected. For example, Ps 69:32 of the 1611 edition read “good” instead
of “God.” This was clearly a printer’s error, and was corrected in 1617.
Apart from a slight revision in 1638, there followed several facetious
attempts to revise the KJV between 1638-1762 but none were successful.
The final
revision of the KJV was done between 1762 and 1769. The 1762 revision had
to do with spelling. For example, old forms that had an “e” after verbs,
and “u” instead of “v,” and “f” for “s” were all standardised to conform
to modern spelling. For example, “feare” is “fear,” “mooued” is “moved,”
and “euill” is “evil,” and “alfo,” is “also.” All these Gothic and German
spelling peculiarities have been Romanised. 1769 saw an updating of
weights, measures, and coins. This 1769 edition of the KJV is the one
popularly in print today. It is important to note that the 1769 edition is
essentially the same as the 1611.
1850? Is this Hudson’s typo? There was an 1805 (not 50) edition
which accidentally printed a proofreader’s note “to remain” in the text of
Gal 4:29 that made the verse to read “him that was born after the Spirit
to remain ….” The only significant revision in the 1800s was in 1873 when
Scrivener worked on the KJV’s marginal notes, orthography, and cross
references.
There are not two
or more KJVs but only one, and the one that is used today is basically the
1769 edition.
(9) In what language did Jesus Christ (not
Peter Ruckman and others) teach that the Old Testament would be preserved
forever according to Matt 5:18?
Jesus taught that the OT would be preserved forever
in the Hebrew language. This preservation must logically apply to the NT
as well which was written in Greek. The jot and tittle of the divinely
inspired Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words were the words Jesus promised
would be preserved for all time in Matt 5:18.
(10) Where does the Bible teach that God
will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one 17th
Century English translation?
Nowhere specifically. Nevertheless, it must be said
that the Bible does teach explicitly that God will preserve perfectly His
divinely inspired words in the original languages as promised in Ps
12:6-7, Matt 5:18, Matt 24:35 and many other passages. By the logic of
faith we identify the perfect Word of God to be the inspired and preserved
Hebrew and Aramaic words of the Masoretic Text and the Greek words of the
Textus Receptus underlying the KJV.
(11) Did God lose the words of the
originals when the “autographs” were destroyed?
Although we do not have the Autographa (the very
first scripts) today, we have the Apographa (copies) which reflect the
Autographa. All the divinely inspired words of the Autographa have been
providentially preserved in the Apographa underlying the KJV. We affirm
with the Westminster divines that the Autographa “being immediately
inspired by God [are] by His singular care and providence kept pure in all
ages” (Westminster Confession of Faith, I:VIII).
Providentially speaking, the Autographa were
neither “lost” nor “destroyed.” The purity of God’s Word has been
faithfully maintained throughout the whole transmission of the
Byzantine/Majority/Received Text, and finally attained in the Apographa of
the Hebrew Masoretic Text for the Old Testament and the Greek Textus
Receptus for the New Testament underlying the KJV.
By faith, we believe in God’s promise that He will
allow none of His words to be lost. Ps 12:6-7 says, “The words of
the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth,
purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt
preserve them from this generation for ever.” Jesus declared in Matt
24:35, “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not
pass away.” In Matt 5:18. Jesus promised, “For verily I say unto you, Till
heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass
from the law, till all be fulfilled.”
(12) Did the KJV translators mislead their
readers by saying that their New Testament was “translated out of the
original Greek?” Were they “liars” for claiming to have “the original
Greek” to translate from?
No, they were not liars, because the term “original
Greek” indeed refers to the inspired and preserved Greek NT Text they had.
The term “original” only means that the NT was originally written in
Greek.
(13) Was the “original Greek” lost after
1611?
No, the “original Greek” continues to exist to this
day, and we call it the Textus Receptus Greek New Testament.
(14) Did the great Protestant Reformation
(1517-1603) take place without “the word of God”?
Of course not! The Protestant Reformation arose
because of the Bible. Sola Scriptura (Scriptures Alone) was one of
the Reformation pillars. What were the pre-1611 Bibles that were “the Word
of God”? They were the Wycliffe Bible (1382), the Tyndale Bible (1525),
the Coverdale Bible (1535), the Matthew Bible (1537), the Taverner Bible
(1539), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishops’
Bible (1568), all of which facilitated the Reformation cause, and were
faithful precursors to the King James Bible.
(15) What translation of “the word of God,”
used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant?
Every translation of the Word of God used by the
Reformers that was faithfully translated and based on the pure and
preserved OT Masoretic Text and NT Received Text may rightly be considered
the Word of God, infallible and inerrant insofar as they accurately
reflect the original text.
(16) 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?
Yes, they did, because they were using faithful
translations that were based on the pure and preserved OT Masoretic Text
and NT Received Text. They were also using the most accurate versions of
their time, and that is the main thing that God expects of His people.
(17) Was Tyndale’s (1525), or Coverdale’s
(1535), or Matthew’s (1537), or the Great (1539), or Geneva (1560) …
English Bibles absolutely infallible?
Answered in Qs14, 15, and 16.
(18) 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 Pet 1:23)?
A lost sinner can be and must be born again by the
“incorruptible word of God” (1 Pet 1:23). God’s Word has been purely
preserved in the Hebrew Masoretic Text and Greek Textus Receptus. Any
accurate translation based on this can be used of God to save sinners.
Can the NIV, for instance, lead someone to
salvation? Here is an answer from the Trinitarian Bible Society: “The NIV
contains enough truth to be used of the Holy Spirit to draw a man to the
Saviour. But although it contains truth, is it the very Word of God? If
not, Christians must be urged to return to the truth.”
There is no denial that sinners may be saved
through the modern versions if such versions contain enough of the gospel
(1 Cor 15:1-4), just like a person may be saved by hearing a sermon or
reading a tract. This however does not mean that God sanctions such
versions or that the Church should continue using them. Remember, God
still holds His people responsible to use the most faithful translation,
based on the purest text.
(19) If the KJV can “correct” the inspired
originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” need
correction or improvement?
Answered in Q5.
(20) Since most “KJV-Onlyites” believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired “scripture” (2 Pet 1:20), and 2 Pet 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”?
This question assumes all KJV-Only advocates to be
Ruckmanites who believe that the KJV was given by divine inspiration. This
is a very unfair and untrue representation of the facts. It would be
absurd to ascribe to a translation the same degree of perfection that the
Holy Spirit gave in the inspiration of the original language Scriptures.
The divine inspiration of the original language Scriptures is quite
different from the translation of the Scriptures for no translators can
claim divine inspiration for their translation work. Nonetheless, the KJV
pastors and scholars faithfully and accurately translated their English
Bible from the inspired and inerrant Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek words that
God has providentially and infallibly preserved.
(21) Which reading is the verbally
(word-for-word) inerrant scripture—“whom ye” (Cambridge KJV’s) or “whom
he” (Oxford KJV’s) at Jer 34:16?
The reading “whom ye” in the Cambridge KJV is
correct. In Jer 34:16, the Hebrew
!T,j]L'vi (shillachthem)
is the piel perfect form of the root
jl'v; (shalach)
with a 2nd masculine plural suffix. The verbally
inerrant reading is thus “whom ye.” The Oxford “whom he” has to be a
spelling/typing/printing error.
(22) Which reading is the verbally
(word-for-word) inerrant scripture—“sin” (Cambridge KJV’s) or “sins”
(Oxford KJV’s) at 2 Chron 33:19?
The Hebrew word used in 2 Chron 33:19 is
/taF;j' (chattatho),
a feminine singular noun with a 3rd masculine singular
suffix (see BDB, sv
taF;j', 308). Again the Cambridge KJV, “his sin,” is correct (see
Q21 above).
(23) Who publishes the infallible “inerrant KJV”?
The British Crown owns the copyright to the KJV,
and hence the right to grant permission to publish it to whomever she
wishes. Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II licensed only William Collins Sons
and Company Limited to print and publish the KJV in 1958. However, it does
seem that the Crown does not care too much to enforce her copyright. The
KJV is published today by not a few University Presses, Bible Societies,
publishing houses, and software companies in Britain and America and
elsewhere. As regards the “inerrant KJV” see Q24 below.
(24) Since the revisions of the KJV from
1613-1850 [sic] made … many hundreds of changes [sic] … would you say the
KJV was “verbally inerrant” in 1611 … or 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701,
1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850 [sic]?
When we talk about infallibility, inerrancy, and
inspiration, we are primarily referring to the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek
words of the Holy Scriptures. A Bible translation is “infallible,” and
“inerrant” only to the extent that it is faithful and accurate to the
Hebrew and Greek Scriptures, and even then its “inerrancy,” and
“infallibility” is not direct but derived.
It must be noted that the changes to the KJV were
not due to any change in the Hebrew and Greek Text, but to the refinements
that have been made to the English language itself, and to the
typographical or typesetting mistakes that arose out of the printing
process. The original language text itself is verbally inerrant.
Translations made from that text would share in the verbal inerrancy of
the text insofar as they are accurate word-for-word translations of the
text. Thus, refinement and improvement in translation was not only
possible, but also needful (see answer to Q8).
(25) 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 … if the
historical fact was revealed to you that King James was a practicing
homosexual all his life?
There are those who say that King James was a homosexual, and there are
those who think not (recently, a scholarly 392-page book by Stephen A
Coston Sr, King James the VI of Scotland and the I of England: Unjustly
Accused? [St Petersburg: KoenigsWort Incorporated, 1996], takes the
latter view). But for argument’s sake, let us say King James was
homosexual. Being homosexual he would surely alter scriptural texts that
speak against the sin of homosexuality. We do not find such alterations in
the KJV. On the contrary, we find intact such passages as Rom 1:26-27
speaking out against “vile affections; for even their women did change
the natural use into that which is against nature: And likewise also the
men, leaving the natural use of the woman, burned in their lust one toward
another; men with men working that which is unseemly, and receiving in
themselves that recompence of their error which was meet.” If King
James were truly homosexual, he would be expected to change or dilute this
passage. There was no such tampering. In any case, even if King James was
homosexual, he was not among the translators, and had no part in the
translating work.
(26) 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 Paine, The Men Behind the KJV,
40, 69).
No one can ever claim that the men who translated
the KJV were perfectly sinless. If they were alive, they would probably be
the first to admit their sins, and confess the grace of God that allowed
them the privilege of being involved in the Bible translation work. Even
the original OT and NT writers of the Scriptures were not perfect men. For
example, David committed adultery and yet God used him to write the
Psalms. Peter denied Christ three times and yet wrote 1-2 Peter. Generally
speaking, there is no reason to doubt that the men who translated the KJV,
like the biblical writers, were regenerate men of piety, godliness and
erudite scholarship, their weaknesses and failings of the flesh
notwithstanding.
Now, what about Richard Thomson? Richard Montague
called him “a most admirable philologist,” and no doubt for this reason he
was inducted into the translation committee. Paine says that he was among
the “younger men.” What about his drinking? McClure would have us know
that Thomson’s alcoholism occurred in his later years, and not necessarily
during the time he worked on the KJV. At any rate, even if Thomson did
drink, Paine tells us that “he arose in the morning with his head clear
enough to go forward competently with the day’s work.”
The Bible teaches the divine inspiration of the
words and not the men whether apostles, prophets, scribes or
translators. The men were spiritually guided (2 Pet 1:21), but the words
were divinely inspired and absolutely inerrant not only in matters of
salvation, but also in matters of history, geography and science (2 Tim
3:16).
(27) Is it possible that the rendition “gay
clothing,” in the KJV at Jas 2:3, could give the wrong impression to the
modern-English KJV reader?
It is unfortunate that the word “gay” today has
acquired a negative connotation. The modern English KJV reader however
would not be misled, when he reads the context of Jas 2:3 – “And ye
have respect to him that weareth the gay clothing, and say unto him, Sit
thou here in a good place …” It is easy to see here that the word
“gay” has nothing to do with homosexual attire, but with wealthy,
ostentatious dressing.
(28) Did dead people “wake up” in the
morning according to Isa 37:36 in the KJV?
In Isa 37:36, the KJV renders a literal and
accurate translation of the Hebrew text: “Then the angel of the LORD
went forth, and smote in the camp of the Assyrians a hundred and fourscore
and five thousand: and when they arose early in the morning, behold, they
were all dead corpses.” It is quite plain that “they” who arose were
not the same as “they” who were dead corpses.
(29) Was “Baptist” John’s last name
according to Matt 14:8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
In Bible times, as well as in KJV English, it was
not uncommon to find a person surnamed with his title or official
designation. Eg Antiochus Epiphanes, Julius Caesar, Judas Maccabeus. The
word “Baptist” was therefore not John’s last name, but his well-known
designation.
(30) Does 2 Cor 6:11-13 in the KJV make any
sense to the modern English KJV reader as compared to the NIV?
Although modern English versions may make certain
verses easier to understand to the modern reader, they may not be accurate
to the true meaning or intent of the text. As a matter of fact,
present-day English versions like the NIV, by using the loose “dynamic
equivalence” method of translation, have gone too far in giving a modern
and strange voice in an attempt to replace the KJV.
The NIV rendering of 2 Cor 6:11-13 is a case in
point. It shows how the NIV is an interpretation of or a commentary on the
original text, and not a word-for-word translation. For example, the KJV
practically translates word-for-word the meaning of the original text in
verse 11, “to stoma hemon (our mouth) aneoge (is opened)
pros (unto) humas (you),” but the NIV interprets the words as
“We have spoken freely to you” which do not give the actual or precise
meaning of the verbally (not conceptually) inspired Scripture. In fact the
original words mean much more than “free speech.” As such, the NIV should
not be taken as “Holy Bible” since it does not translate the inspired
words of God accurately word-for-word. At best, it is only a commentary on
the Bible like any other commentary written by men and thus prone to human
fallibility and subjectivity.
Hence, we strongly discourage the use of the
modern versions disguised as “Holy Bible” for personal study because of
the many omissions, distortions, inaccuracies and misinterpretations found
in them due to their corrupt source text and wrong method of translation.
Instead, we recommend The Defined King James Bible published by The
Bible For Today Press, 1998, where all the archaic words have their
respective modern meanings footnoted for convenient reference. For
example, the archaic word “straightened” in 2 Cor 6:12 is footnoted as
“closely restricted, hemmed in.” Readers today can thus easily read and
understand the faithful and reliable KJV.
(31) Does the singular “oath’s” occurring
in every KJV at Matt 14:9 and Mark 6:26 “correct” every Textus Receptus
Greek which has the plural “oaths”?
Although
o{rkou"
(horkous)
is in the Greek plural, there are times when it is legitimate to render
the plural in the singular especially when it is a plural of majesty.
At times the plural speaks not of multiplicity but of majesty.
It seeks to highlight the grandiose nature of the meaning contained in the
noun. This is probably the case with Matt 14:9 and Mark 6:26 especially
when we notice that the oath was given by a king. In other words,
it was no ordinary oath, but a royal oath, and must thus be
doubly honoured by the king who made it. That was why Herod, though
extremely reluctant to kill John, could not retract the promise he had
already made. The KJV translation, “for the oath’s sake,” is thus
perfectly legitimate.
(32) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be
“worshipped” 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 to the
Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
The word
dovxa
(doxa)
here is to be distinguished from the usual “worship” (latreuvw, latreuo, and
proskunevw,
proskuneo) that is accorded to God. The context
clearly shows that the word “worship” in Luke 14:10 has nothing to do with
religious worship, but has the connotation of respect or honour given to
men in high office or dignitaries. The KJV is thus not self-contradictory
in Luke 4:8 and 14:10.
Although we strongly recommend the laity to use the KJV as
their scriptural text in their study of the Bible, we reject the
fallacious view that the Greek Bible cannot be used to shed light on the
English text.
(33) Is the Holy Spirit an “it” according to
John 1:32; Rom 8:16, 26; and 1 Pet 1:11 in the KJV? (Again—you may not go
to the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!)
The word “it” here, with reference to the Holy Spirit, is the
direct result of the literal translation of the neuter gender of the
pronouns and participles in the Greek text that stand in agreement with
the neuter gender for the Greek word for “spirit” (pneu'ma,
pneuma). This does not mean that the KJV teaches that the
Holy Spirit is an impersonal force. The cited verses themselves show that
this is not the case, as a force cannot bear witness with our spirit that
we are the children of God (Rom 8:16), make intercession for us (Rom 8:26)
or testify beforehand of the sufferings of Christ (1 Pet 1:11). Only a
person can do such things, and the Holy Spirit is a person—the 3rd
person of the Holy Trinity.
Again—although we hold to a KJV-superiority position, we
categorically reject the false view that says the inspired Greek Text may
not be used to shed light on the KJV.
(34) Does Luke 23:56 support a “Friday”
crucifixion in the KJV (no “day” here in Greek).
Luke 23:56 supports a “Friday” crucifixion in the light of
verses 54 and 55. Luke clearly recorded that the day of the crucifixion
was the day of “the preparation, and the sabbath drew on (near)” (Luke
23:54). The “preparation” was the preparation for the sabbath of the
passover week (2 Chron 30:21-22, ie, the feast of the unleavened bread
which lasts for 7 days). The passover that Jesus observed was held on a
Thursday evening, while “the preparation of the passover” was held on a
Friday (Mark 15:42). Jesus was thus crucified and buried on Friday before
the “sabbath day” (ie, Saturday) which was a day of rest. The women
returned to the tomb on Sunday with their spices and ointments only to
discover that Jesus is risen from the dead (Luke 24:1-6).
(35) 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).
It is most reasonable to translate Luke 8:55 the
way the KJV has done, because what else could have been given to the girl
to eat than something that is edible? In KJV English, “meat” refers to
“food.” As for Luke 14:10, the context of the wedding feast makes it
obvious that there must have been “meat” or “food” on the table, since
they were obviously reclining down “to eat.”
(36) Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a
“Bible-corrector” for saying that Rom 8:24 should be rendered “saved in
hope,” instead of the KJV’s “saved by hope”?
There is no mistranslation in the KJV of Rom 8:24
since the word “hope” (ejlpivdi,
elpidi) in this verse is in the dative case, which can be
translated in several ways. Spurgeon’s interpretation is only one possible
way to translate the dative case. Not all interpreters will agree with
Spurgeon that it should be rendered “saved in hope” instead of the KJV’s
“saved by hope.” Neither do we think it good for anyone to cause a
believer to doubt God’s Word as accurately translated in the KJV from the
inspired and preserved text.
(37) 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, pp108, 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”?
The KJV has the second “of” in John 3:5 in italics,
which means that it is supplied by the translators and not found in the
Greek text. This allows the reader to decide for himself whether to
interpret it with or without the preposition. Actually the word ‘spirit’
here is in the genitive case, the same as the word “water.” The genitive
has the idea of “out of” especially when used with the Greek preposition
ejk (ek). It is reasonable
for the translators to conclude that the preposition applies to both the
words and not only to the first one.
As for Acts 26:20, the Greek conjunction
kai;(kai) can be translated
as “and,” “also,” or “even.” The rendering, “repent, even turn”
though permissible, does not detract from the KJV’s “repent and turn”
which is perfectly accurate.
It is not wrong to state that the nature of
languages does not permit a “perfect” translation, but surely a
translation ought to be as “perfect” as can be in terms of its accuracy
and faithfulness to the original text. What is required of God’s people is
to use the most accurate translation available, one that is closest to the
original text. The KJV is such a translation for the English language.
(38) 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, p17).
It is correct to believe that the Scriptures “as originally
given” meaning the Scriptures in the original languages—Hebrew, Aramaic,
and Greek—are the absolutely infallible and inerrant Word of God. All the
originally inspired Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek words have been perfectly
preserved by God and we have them today.
Our English translation is a “substantially accurate rendering
of the Scriptures as originally given.” In other words, the KJV, even
though it is the best, most accurate, most faithful translation, is still
a translation of the Scriptures as originally given.
(39) 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, p6).
It is not correct to favour the “canonizing” of the KJV, as
that would elevate it to a status even higher than the inspired and
preserved texts from which it was translated. Read the answers to Qs 5-6.
(40) Did God supernaturally “move His Word
from the original languages to English” in 1611?
No, we do not believe that God supernaturally moved
His Word from the original languages to English (see answers to Qs 1,
3-7). We categorically reject the Ruckmanite view of “double inspiration”
and “advanced revelation” for the KJV.
More
Answers to Questions
(41) If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their
work, how is it that they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and
imperfections as Bible translators?
The KJV translators rightly did not claim to be “inspired” by
God in their translation work, because they were not. Inspiration is
applicable only to the words that God had “breathed out” in the
beginning and inscripturated by Spirit-moved Prophets and Apostles who
were specially commissioned by the Lord to preach and write the Holy
Scriptures (2 Pet 1:21, 2 Tim 3:16, 1 Thess 2:13).
Nevertheless, it must be observed that the King James
translators recognised with deep reverence that the sacred texts from
which they were translating were the inspired words of God. This is why
they ardently desired to make their translation as accurate as possible
despite their own shortcomings and imperfections. In contrast to this, not
all who are involved in modern Bible translation work today have such a
high regard for the texts they translate, as evidenced from the bold
liberties they are willing to take with the text.
(42) When there is a difference between the Textus
Receptus and the Majority Text, why do you prefer the Textus Receptus?
The “Majority Text” or “Byzantine Text” refers to most of the
extant Greek NT manuscripts we have today. The majority of faithfully
transmitted manuscripts bear remarkable uniformity. There are some
differences, but God’s special providential preservation of His words
ensured that “the text found in the vast majority of the Greek New
Testament manuscripts is a trustworthy reproduction of the divinely
inspired Original Text” (E F Hills, The King James Version Defended,
106).
The special providential preservation of the NT saw the
eventual printing of the Textus Receptus in the time of the Reformation.
The Textus Receptus was an edition of the Majority Text that was the
traditional text, received and used extensively by the Church throughout
the centuries, and by the Reformers and Protestants for their translation
work in various languages.
The Textus Receptus and Majority Text belong to the same family
of traditional and preserved texts. However in a few places, the Textus
Receptus is preferred over the Majority Text because the Protestant
Reformation was used by God to recognise and identify all the pure words
of the original Scriptures. One example is 1 John 5:7 (see my paper, “A
Preliminary Examination of the Antiquity and Authenticity of the Johannine
Comma: Does a Clear, Biblical Proof Text Exist for the Doctrine of the
Trinity?” in
http://logosresourcepages.org/Versions/johannine.htm).
(43) Did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of
and quote from the Septuagint (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even
though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was
certainly not a perfect translation?
We doubt that Jesus made use of and quoted from the Septuagint
(a Greek translation of the inspired Hebrew OT). There is not one instance
in the Scriptures where we find Jesus or the Apostles saying that they
have quoted from the Septuagint. Many of the Greek quotations of the OT do
not agree with the Septuagint. The few quotations that do agree are
probably due to the Septuagint copying from the inspired Greek NT rather
than the other way round. It is also reasonable to assume that Jesus and
the Apostles did their own direct translation of the Hebrew text into
Greek. See Prabhudas Koshy, “Did Jesus and the Apostles Rely on ‘The
Corrupt Septuagint’?” Bible Witness (July-September 2002): 25-26.
(44) Since no two manuscripts of the Greek
New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it
that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly mirrors the original?
It is fallacious to dogmatically assume that “no two Greek NT
manuscripts are exactly the same.” There are over 5000 extant Greek NT
manuscripts, and not all of them have been thoroughly examined and
compared yet. What we do know for a fact is that the majority of the
manuscripts reflect remarkably uniform readings, and this must necessarily
mean that they are the providentially preserved copies (see J W Burgon’s
The Traditional Text published by the Dean Burgon Society; see also
E F Hills, The King James Version Defended, 139-68). Burgon proved
that the Traditional Text on which the KJV is based is the trustworthy and
providentially preserved text over against Westcott and Hort’s corrupt
Alexandrian or Minority Text which is from a very small number (1%) of the
extant manuscripts.
More recent studies have also shown that the reading of the KJV
is correct all along, and the modern versions wrong. For instance, papyrus
manuscript P75 which dates back to the 3rd century contains the
ascension clause, “and carried up into heaven,” in Luke 24:51 as found in
the KJV. This clause was determined by the NASB translators to be
non-inspired, and hence deleted. The original NASB did not contain Luke’s
account of Jesus’ ascension. With this manuscript evidence, the NASB
committee will do an about turn, and reinstate the ascension clause back
into the Bible. This shows how unreliable these modern textual critics and
translations are, and how reliable on the other hand the KJV is, together
with its underlying ancient texts, standing the test of time according to
God’s promise (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18, 24:35).
The two chief representatives of the Alexandrian or Minority
Text are the Codex Vaticanus (B) and Codex Sinaiticus (a).
According to Burgon, these two Alexandrian manuscripts are
absolutely unreliable. Burgon wrote, “B and
a, have … established a
tyrannical ascendancy over the imagination of the Critics, which can only
be fitly spoken of as a blind superstition. It matters nothing that all
four are discovered on careful scrutiny to differ essentially, not only
from ninety-nine out of a hundred of the whole body of extant MSS.
besides, but even from one another. This last circumstance,
obviously fatal to their corporate pretensions, is unaccountably
overlooked. And yet it admits of only one satisfactory explanation: viz.
that in different degrees they all exhibit a fabricated text.
Between the first two (B and a)
there subsists an amount of sinister resemblance, which proves that they
must have been derived at no very remote period from the same corrupt
original. ... And be it remembered that the omissions, additions,
substitutions, transpositions, and modifications, are by no means the
same in both. It is in fact easier to find two consecutive verses
in which these two MSS. differ the one from the other, than two
consecutive verses in which they entirely agree” [J W Burgon, The
Revision Revised (Collingswood NJ: Dean Burgon Society Press, 1883),
12].
We have every reason to believe the pure text of God’s Word is
found in the Byzantine/Majority/Received Text that underlies the KJV as
opposed to the host of modern versions that are based on the grossly
corrupt Alexandrian/Minority/Rejected Text of Westcott and Hort and the
modern versions.
(45) Why does the KJV differ from the
Textus Receptus in certain places like Acts 19:20 where the Greek has
“Lord” and the KJV has “God”?
There is no significant difference between the Textus Receptus
and the KJV in Acts 19:20. The Greek word
kuvrio" (kurios) can be translated in a number of ways
depending on the context. It can be rendered “Lord,” “master,” “sir,”
“God,” or “owner” (see The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New
Testament, sv “kuvrio",”
900-1). Acts 19:29 certainly allows for “God” instead of “Lord” since the
context is speaking of the Word of God as a whole. If it is rendered as
“word of the Lord” it might be construed as some specific word from Jesus
instead of God’s Word or the Holy Scriptures in general. In any case,
whether it is “the word of God,” or “the word of the Lord,” both are
perfectly acceptable translations of the original.
(46) Has any Bible to date proved to be that hoped for
improvement of the KJV?
Some say the NKJV is the answer. We doubt that it is, since it
has done away with the “ye’s,” “thee’s,” “thou’s,” “thy’s,” and “thine’s.”
These not only serve to distinguish between the 2nd person
singular and plural, but they also heighten the reverence of the language
of God’s Holy Word. There are also many other unnecessary changes to the
old KJV. The NKJV is not recommended because it (1) shows sympathy to the
corrupt Westcott and Hort Text; (2) departs from the Traditional Hebrew
Masoretic Text and the Greek Textus Receptus at certain places; (3)
incorrectly translates certain verses (eg, Heb 2:16 where its
mistranslation undermines the doctrine of the incarnation of Christ); (4)
unnecessarily changes perfectly understandable and accurate words from the
old KJV; (5) adds words without italicising them, thereby giving the false
impression that they are from the original; and (6) changes nouns to
pronouns and pronouns to nouns (see G W & D E Anderson, The New King
James Version, Trinitarian Bible Society, 1995; and D A Waite, The
New King James Version Compared to the King James Version and the
Underlying Hebrew and Greek Texts, Bible For Today, 1990).
Today, an improved edition of the KJV can be found is The
Defined King James Bible which supplies the modern meanings of the
archaic words of the KJV in its footnotes.
(47) Why did the KJV translators translate
the Apocrypha and include these books in the original 1611 edition?
It must be stated that the KJV translators in no wise
considered the Apocrypha to be inspired Scripture. The Westminster
Confession of Faith (1643-8) which was written not long after the KJV was
translated states that the Apocrypha was clearly not recognised by God’s
people to be part of the Word of God. It is significant to note that when
it came to translating the Apocrypha, the KJV translators did not care
very much for it. Scrivener wrote, “It is well known to Biblical scholars
that the Apocrypha received very inadequate attention from the revisers of
1611 and their predecessors, so that whole passages remain unaltered from
the racy, spirited, rhythmical, but hasty, loose and most inaccurate
version … made by Coverdale for the Bible of 1536.”
It is also important to note that it was not only the KJV that
contained the Apocrypha but also other Reformation Bibles like the
Wycliffe and Geneva Bibles. It was only in 1640 that the Geneva Bible
omitted the Apocrypha, and it was not until the 19th century
that the removal of the Apocrypha from all Protestant Bibles became the
norm.
(48) Why were italics employed by the KJV
translators in 1 John 2:23?
The words “he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also”
1 John 2:23 were italicised because the King James translators initially
did not find them in the Majority Text and in earlier editions of the
Textus Receptus. The common faith however restrained them from omitting
those words since they were found in the Great Bible and the Bishops’
Bible. Later research produced evidence that they should be part of
inspired Scripture because of the testimony of a good number of Greek
manuscripts including
a and B.
The italics should have been removed in the reprints of the KJV but
unfortunately escaped the attention of the printers.
(49) Why are there 35 textual notes given
in the margin of the King James Bible? (Examples: Matt 26:26, “Many Greek
copies have …,” Luke 10:22, “Many ancient copies add these words …,” Luke
17:36, “These verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies,” Acts 25:6,
“Or as some copies read, …”.
These marginal notes compared the differences among the various
editions of the Textus Receptus. Dr E F Hills observed that “this
comparison indicates that the differences which distinguish the various
editions of the Textus Receptus from each other are very minor. They are
also very few. … the 3rd edition of Stephanus and the first
edition of Elzevir differ from one another in the Gospel of Mark only 19
times. On the other hand, the corrupt Alexandrian codices like
a, B and D differ in so many
places and could not agree among themselves: Codex B disagrees with
Codex Aleph in Mark 652 times and with Codex D 1,944 times.
What a contrast!
Hills went on to say, “The texts of the several editions of the
Textus Receptus were God guided. They were set up under the leading of
God’s special providence. Hence the differences between them were kept
down to a minimum.”
“But what do we do in these few places in which the several
editions of the Textus Receptus disagree with one another? Which text do
we follow? The answer to this question is easy. We are guided by the
common faith. Hence we favor that form of the Textus Receptus upon which
more than any other God, working providentially, has placed the stamp of
His approval, namely, the King James Version, or, more precisely, the
Greek text underlying the King James Version” [E F Hills, The King
James Version Defended (Des Moines: Christian Research Press, 1984),
222-3].
(50) Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769)
became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his
edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which
edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect Bible?
An analysis of the 75,000 minor details will reveal that the
changes were for the most part in updating the spelling of English words
that had changed over time. It would be therefore quite unfair and
untrue to say that our present KJV edition is flawed, not being identical
with the 1611 edition in 75,000 details. If a modern English reader were
to read the 1611 edition, he may find it very difficult to read, because
of all the different spelling of certain words. We must thank the Lord for
the subsequent editions of the KJV which made the KJV more accurate and
readable. According to Dr D A Waite, there were not 75,000 but only 285
minor changes not of substance but of form such as “towards” for “toward”,
“burnt” for “burned,” “amongst” for “among” (Waite, Defending the King
James Bible, 238; see also answer to Q8).
Once again we say that the KJV-superiority position does not
mean that the KJV cannot be improved on or that the original language
texts may not be used to shed further light on God’s truth found in the
English Bible. The KJV-superiority position is merely the logical result
of applying the principle that God holds His people in the
English-speaking world (just as He holds those in other languages)
responsible to use the best translation of the Bible that is presently
available and done by the best translators (spiritually and academically
qualified) from the best Hebrew and Greek texts (NOT the Westcott
and Hort text BUT the traditional Masoretic Hebrew and Received
Greek texts) which possess all the qualities of infallibility and
inerrancy since they possess all the originally inspired words that
God has continuously preserved without the loss of any word to the jot and
tittle (Ps 12:6-7, Matt 5:18).
For further study, go to my booklet,
KJV
Questions and Answers (Singapore: Bible Witness Literature, 2003)
available freely at the website of Far Eastern Bible College (www.febc.edu.sg).
Click
here to view in PDF format
Top
/ Back
You will need to install the FREE Adobe Acrobat Reader to view and print the PDF files.
|
