Answering the Textual Critics…Part Two

Posted on September 2, 2011


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

Straining at gnats and swallowing camels here. In general, I do not believe that every last thing they translators ever said or wrote is without error. Just as I do not believe that every last thing the apostle paul wrote is inspired. The commentary on any given subject, is not, nor has it ever been inspired, their commentary is not what God promised to preserve. To insinuate that I must agree with everything any one of them said or wrote at any given time, even on the subject of the bible is not fair.

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?

I guess I don’t really even understand the actual point of this question. I do not see Christ in effect saying, “my words will ONLY be preserved in the Greek,” if that is what the point is. But I will go with my understanding of the insinuation. If we agree that he did preserve his word perfectly in the Greek…explain why it is not possible to have an accurate translation to any other language, that was providentially orchestrated. If we agree that God was able to providentially preserve his words for several thousand years, it is not an intellectual stretch to say, that he could provide an accurate translation in another language. This translation CONTINUING the preservation, not supplanting the inspiration of the originals.

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

It don’t…?? What should the actual question be? Where does the Bible teach that it is inspired. Where does the Bible teach that it would be preserved? And where is it now? And don’t tell me the only way to truly understand God’s pure words is to speak ancient Greek.

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?

No, they were not liars. What is more likely, that they actually thought the had the actual pieces of paper that the Apostle Paul wrote on?? Or that they were making the point that they had the bible in simply the original language? It seems like more likely that not, they were simply stating their belief that God had indeed preserved his words, just like he said that he would. Are ‘you’ saying they didn’t even have the orignal Greek, see question thirteen. Did God preserve it, even in Greek, or not?

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

The KJV cannot correct the Greek…is this another Ruckmanite Question? There is nothing to correct anyhow. Simply put, what we have is an accurate English translation from a providentially preserved Greek. What exactly is there to correct?

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?

Yes! Once again…straining at gnats, and swallowing camels. Let me clarify the actual CORRECT position. My problems with the modern translations are not, misspellings, improper punctuation, possessives, and mood tense…etc. My problem with modern perversions is the changes to the actual text, resulting not from a difference in opinion on HOW a word should be translated, but from the fact they were actually translating different words. And changes that actually do change the meaning of what the Bible is saying. Dropping the ‘e’ off of ‘borne’ to modernize the spelling is not a sin.

Correcting a typo is not the same as translating from a corrupt Greek text. Let me reiterate, all Greek texts are not equal. The KJV translators themselves had this to say, “nothing is begun and perfected at the same time.” Translating God’s word from Greek or Hebrews is not the same as just making an exact copy of the Greek Manuscripts. Translation is a process. Now nonKJVO people can say “that is what all the new versions are, just continuing the translations process” I will refer them back to the fact about translating different Greek manuscripts. To argue that revisions to a translation are indicative of an errant translation is not logical.

And once again….you are arguing my point. I have been told on several occasions “no critical differences exist between all the modern perversions and the KJV” and then that same person will turn around and pick at revisions made between the 1638 and 1644 revisions of the KJV in order to discredit it. Do differences matter to you??? Or not?? You can’t have it both ways. If you want to say they matter, then we can discuss the different types of differences, i.e. different greek manuscripts vs. typos. But if they do not matter, don’t ask this question.

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!]

I am a KJV-onlyite…and I can go to the Greek.

Luke 4:8 And Jesus answered and said unto him, Get thee behind me, Satan: for it is written, Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God, and him only shalt thou serve

Greek “Proskuneo”

  • 1) to kiss the hand to (towards) one, in token of reverence
    2) among the Orientals, esp. the Persians, to fall upon the knees and touch the ground with the forehead as an expression of profound reverence
    3) in the NT by kneeling or prostration to do homage (to one) or make obeisance, whether in order to express respect or to make supplication

Luke 14:10 But when thou art bidden, go and sit down in the lowest room; that when he that bade thee cometh, he may say unto thee, Friend, go up higher: then shalt thou have worship in the presence of them that sit at meat with thee.

Greek “Doksa”

  • 1) opinion, judgment, view
    2) opinion, estimate, whether good or bad concerning someone
    3) splendour, brightness

Go and look at the different ways this Greek word was translated to get an idea of the meaning. Why would you ever take the position that you cannot go to the Greek to define a word?

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!]

This is a somewhat hypocritical question by those who are modern perversion users. Because several modern perversions also use an ‘impersonal’ reference. it makes me wonder what the real issue is here. Let us define the word “it”

Random House Websters College Dictionary 1999.

2. used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded:


Who was it? It was John.

Did you see the baby? yes, isn’t it cute.

The cant likes to sun itself in the window

The Websters 1967 Collegiate Dictionary defines “it” as “a PERSON or animal whose gender is unknown or disregarded.”

The Father and the Son are clearly masculine, but sometimes the Spirit is referred to as masculine, and sometimes as neuter. Not because it is neuter, but because the gender is disregarded or not taken into account in THAT particular context. The very definition of the word ‘it’ says that the gender of the ‘person or animal’ in question can be determined elsewhere.

I didn’t even need to go to the Greek for this. An understanding of the English definition of the word ‘it’ indicates clearly that the use to the world like we find in the KJV is clearly acceptable for the English Language. Taking into mind the rest of the Bible where the gender of the Spirit is clearly delineated as being male. To refer to the Holy Spirit as and ‘it’ is a common practice in all English translations, both before and after the KJV. In addition, to try to claim the Spirit is actually a neuter entity, smacks of Gnosticism.

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

Perhaps a better question is, “does the Greek really distinguish” between the two?”

Let us give the common accepted definition of the Greek words.

Agape – 1. brotherly love, affection, good will, love, benevolence
1a) Of the love of men to men; esp. Christians towards Christians which is enjoined and prompted by their religion, whether the love be viewed as in the soul or expressed
1b) Of the love of men towards God
1c) Of the love of God towards man
1d) Of the love of God towards Christ
1e) Of the love of Christ towards men

I think that the word agape carries the ‘connotation’ of being the highest form of spiritual, christian, selfless, moral love

Phileo -1) to love
1a) to approve of
1b) to like
1c) sanction
1d) to treat affectionately or kindly, to welcome, befriend
2) to show signs of love
2a) to kiss
3) to be fond of doing
3a) be wont, use to do

This word carries a connotation of being more of a casual, friendly type love.

So let us look at how the words are used interchangeably, even in the Greek

Romans 9:13 As it is written, Jacob have I loved, but Esau have I hated.

2 Timothy 4:10 For Demas hath forsaken me, having loved this present world, and is departed unto Thessalonica; Crescens to Galatia, Titus unto Dalmatia.

John 3:19 And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.

John 12:43 For they loved the praise of men more than the praise of God.

Luke 6:32 For if ye love them which love you, what thank have ye? for sinners also love those that love them.

All of these verses use the Greek word agape, or form of it, agapao. Did Demas have that spiritual, selfless, christian love….for the world. Look some more verse up

Matthew 6:4 – loving masters

Luke 7:42 – loving creditors

II Peter 2:15 – loving the wages of unrighteosness

John 3:19 – loving darkness

John 12:43 – loving the praise of men

All of which uses that very “intense and noble” greek word for love, agape.

Are these really all examples of the highest form of love that we can have???

What about the other word? Phileo

John 16:27 For <1063> the Father <3962> himself <846> loveth <5368> (5719) you <5209>, because <3754> ye <5210> have loved <5368> (5758) me <1691>, and <2532> have believed <4100> (5758) that <3754> I <1473> came out <1831> (5627) from <3844> God <2316>.

1 Corinthians 16:22 If any man <1536> love <5368> (5719) not <3756> the Lord <2962> Jesus <2424> Christ <5547>, let him be <2277> (5749) Anathema <331> Maranatha <3134>.

John 5:20 For <1063> the Father <3962> loveth <5368> (5719) the Son <5207>, and <2532> sheweth <1166> (5719) him <846> all things <3956> that <3739> himself <846> doeth <4160> (5719): and <2532> he will shew <1166> (5692) him <846> greater <3187> <0> works <2041> than <3187> these <5130>, that <2443> ye <5210> may marvel <2296> (5725).

Titus 3:15 All <3956> that are with <3326> me <1700> salute <782> (5736) thee <4571>. Greet <782> (5663) them that love <5368> (5723) us <2248> in <1722> the faith <4102>. Grace <5485> [be] with <3326> you <5216> all <3956>. Amen <281>. «[It was written <1125> (5648) to <4314> Titus <5103>, ordained <5500> (5685) the first <4413> bishop <1985> of the church <1577> of the Cretians <2912>, from <575> Nicopolis <3533> of Macedonia <3109>.]

I intentionally left the strongs numbers in. All these verses use the perceived weaker greek word for love Phileo

Does God love us casually, as we love his son casually? Should we love the brethren casually? Does the Father love the Son casually?

John 21:20 ¶ Then <1161> Peter <4074>, turning about <1994> (5651), seeth <991> (5719) the disciple <3101> whom <3739> Jesus <2424> loved <25> (5707) following <190> (5723); which <3739> also <2532> leaned <377> (5627) on <1909> his <846> breast <4738> at <1722> supper <1173>, and <2532> said <2036> (5627), Lord <2962>, which <5101> is he <2076> (5748) that betrayeth <3860> (5723) thee <4571>?

John 20:2 Then <3767> she runneth <5143> (5719), and <2532> cometh <2064> (5736) to <4314> Simon <4613> Peter <4074>, and <2532> to <4314> the other <243> disciple <3101>, whom <3739> Jesus <2424> loved <5368> (5707), and <2532> saith <3004> (5719) unto them <846>, They have taken away <142> (5656) the Lord <2962> out of <1537> the sepulchre <3419>, and <2532> we know <1492> (5758) not <3756> where <4226> they have laid <5087> (5656) him <846>.

Was Jesus making a very big distinction between these two words???

Hebrews 12:6 For <1063> whom <3739> the Lord <2962> loveth <25> (5719) he chasteneth <3811> (5719), and <1161> scourgeth <3146> (5719) every <3956> son <5207> whom <3739> he receiveth <3858> (5736).

Revelation 3:19 As many as <3745> <1437> I love <5368> (5725), I <1473> rebuke <1651> (5719) and <2532> chasten <3811> (5719): be zealous <2206> (5657) therefore <3767>, and <2532> repent <3340> (5657).

What is the difference here?

1 Thessalonians 4:9 ¶ But <1161> as touching <4012> brotherly love <5360> ye need <2192> (5719) <5532> not <3756> that I write <1125> (5721) unto you <5213>: for <1063> ye <5210> yourselves <846> are <2075> (5748) taught of God <2312> to <1519> love <25> (5721) one another <240>.

1 Peter 1:22 Seeing ye have purified <48> (5761) your <5216> souls <5590> in <1722> obeying <5218> the truth <225> through <1223> the Spirit <4151> unto <1519> unfeigned <505> love of the brethren <5360>, [see that ye] love <25> (5657) one another <240> with <1537> a pure <2513> heart <2588> fervently <1619>:

What is the difference here? Both greek words are used in the same verse talking about the same thing?

So to answer the question succinctly? The kjv doesn’t make a big difference, because there doesn’t really appear to be that big of difference in the Greek.

Same rules apply….i will discuss, but right here, Don’t bother taking it back to Facebook….

Posted in: Doctrine