Answering the Modern Textual Critics…Part One

Posted on September 1, 2011

2


1) Which KJV is inspired: the Cambridge or the Oxford?

What are the differences? An interesting question from those
who claim there are no critical differences between the KJV and other modern versions.

There are no differences that change the meanings.

II Chronicles 33:19 sins vs. sin

Jeremiah 34:16 whom he vs. whom ye

Nahum 3:16 flieth vs. fleeth

I guess never mind the thousands of differences between the KJV and modern perversion that actually change the meaning.

This is a question designed to intimidated those who believe in inspiration and subsequent preservation

It is a question engineered to confound those who by those who claim the KJV is a second inspiration.

God did not give his word in 1611, he simply preserved it.

I guess my question for nonKJVO people would be….do differences matter or not??

2) If the KJV translators were inspired, why did they use a marginal reference to the apocrypha? (Heb. 11:35, marginal reference to Mac. 7:7). Better yet, why did they include the entire
Apocrypha?

The KJV translators were not inspired…period. Marginal references are not inspired nor preserved anyhow

3) If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in each modern language?

Psalms 147:19 He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel.

Psalms 147:20 He hath not dealt so with any nation: and [as for his] judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD.

The same reason God called Abraham instead of someone else. The same reason he chose David instead of one of his brothers. The insinuation is, by this question, “since there is not a completely accurate translation in every known language or dialect, there can’t be one in English.” That is an illogical position.

4) If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?

A diversion from the actual issue is what we find here. Are nonkjvo people all the sudden concerned with a typo by a printer that was caught and corrected in a subsequent edition more than they are with the faulty underlying texts that the modern translations are translated from?

5) 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?

1. Kjv translators did not exclusively use the TR.

2. They considered all that was available in 1611, so no, not every everything came from one Greek manuscript.

3. Nothing has been discovered since 1611 to undermine the credibility of the manuscript scripts they used.

Manuscript evidence backs the KJV. It’s a matter of fact, not opinion. .

6) If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?

Adding words for clarification is a common practice while translating, it does not mean that it is unreliable; it means they knew what they were doing. At least the translators were honest and pointed out where they added words for clarification

7) Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn’t God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God’s “mate selection manual.” Also, Isa 22 “He prophesieth
Shebna’s deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution” This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)

Chapter heading, and chapter breaks are not inspired or preserved. They are not the words of god. God never promised to preserve added chapter headings. This is a straw man.

8) Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an “inspired translation”? (Mormon’s believe Joseph Smith’s English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)

No we don’t an example of a straw man that is set up and blown down. We believe in the inspiration of the Originals, and the subsequent and providential preservation of the originals. Preservation to the extent if the first one was inspired…so is the last one. Because if you have an accurate preservation of something that was inspired, your preservation is inspired as well. Not apart from the original, but because of the original. If you don’t have an accurate preservation of the inspired original, having inspired originals really doesn’t matter. The real question is? God said he would preserve it, where is it at?

9) 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 names of these creatures are?

The KJV was written in the era before cobra had been imported into the English language.

Cockatrice simply refers to a ‘hooded, venomous serpent’

Satyr…at its root simply means ‘hairy creature’

Unicorn…simply means ‘animal with one horn’ are there any animals with just one horn today? Could there have ever been an animal with one horn that is now extinct, as are the dinosaurs? This uestion is an example of pseudo Greek ‘scholars’ taking exception to the way a word was translated.

10) Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions where
none exist?

The verse from the Old Testament…Genesis 15:6 And he believed in the LORD; and he counted it to him for righteousness.

The Verses from the New Testament

Romans 4:3 For what saith the scripture? Abraham believed God, and it was counted unto him for righteousness.

Romans 4:9 ¶ [Cometh] this blessedness then upon the circumcision [only], or upon the uncircumcision also? for we say that faith was reckoned to Abraham for righteousness.

Romans 4:22 And therefore it was imputed to him for righteousness.

Galatians 3:6 ¶ Even as Abraham believed God, and it was accounted to him for righteousness.

I looked up the words in question. Counted, reckoned, imputed, accounted. You look them up and tell me the difference?? What is exactly is the issue here? Raising issue with word choice?

11) How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of “seraphims” rather than “seraphim”?

As I answered these questions I became increasingly confused? nonKJVO folks, who are not concerned with the differences between the KJV and the modern perversions see a sample of the difference between the KJV and the NASB. And yet we see their concern here for an admittedly “rare” grammatical error. But lest I be accused of dismissing and not answering…. The KJV is not in error here. The KJV is an ENGLISH translation. In order to clearly show that the word is talking about a plurality of seraph(s) we form the English plural by adding an (s).

There are multiple English words whose singular form ends with “im” and the plural of these words ends with “ims.” Brim, claim, denim, interim, maxim, trim, pilgrim, rim, and victim. Once again the KJV is obviously an English translation. When an English speaking person sees the transliterated word ‘seraphim’ we would not know whether or not it was singular or plural. So the KJV translators added the ‘s’ to the end of the word for CLARITY. To make sure the reader understood what was being said, i.e. that the word indicated plurality. Therefore we have the perfectly acceptable English word “seraphims”

In addition the KJV translators, as the indicated in their preface, compared manuscripts and previous English translations. Coverdale 1535, Great Bible 1540, Bishops Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1587 and the Douay-Rheims. All of which translated the it the same way. Even the NIV uses the word ‘seraphs’ which, I guess, according to some would be incorrect as well.

I have answered the first half of the questions posed by nonKJVO people. The rest will be forthcoming shortly. I will just say this, go ahead and comment even if you disagree. But do not bother putting one line stuff along the lines of “this is stupid” because I won’t approve the comment. You take it back to facebook and I will not respond. I have spent a lot of time giving thoughtful answers to
objections. I don’t expect you to agree. But I do expect, and will insist on you showing respect. And “YOU” know who I am talking about. I will respond to actual answering the questions and statements I have made. Don’t just summarily dismiss? If you can rebut me…do so. But use arguments and not name calling.

The rest of the question to be covered….

12) Were the KJV translators “liars” for saying that “the very meanest [poorest] translation” is still “the word of God”?

13) In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?

14) Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?

15) Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was “translated out of the original Greek”? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they “liars” for claiming to have “the original Greek” to translate from?

16) If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally breathed out by God need correction or improvement?

17) Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words – would you say the KJV was “verbally inerrant” in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?

18) Did Jesus teach a way for men to be “worshiped” according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember – you may not go the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

19) Is the Holy Spirit an “it” according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again – you may not go the Greek for any “light” if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]

20) Why does the KJV not distinguish between Agape and Phileo love?

Advertisements