DEFENDING GOD'S WORD ONLINE - 01
SHARE THIS ARTICLE WITH YOUR FRIENDS and FOLLOW
How We Know the King James Bible is God's ONLY Word in English
TO: PM
[A Pastor who claims to "love" the King James Bible, but who challenges its authority as the Word of God, in favour of counterfeit modern versions, like many other ill-informed or defiant men who corrupt the word of God. - II Cor 2:17]
In Response to your article:
I spend most of my life building people's faith in God's word. I don't know the reasons why you have come to the conclusions that you have, but I can see from your article that someone has misinformed you of the issue and/or has not sufficiently informed you of the truth.
I do not claim to be "KJVO" because some attach ridiculous beliefs to the label. However, I do absolutely believe that the King James is God's only word in the English language. I have heard others who claim to be ex-KJVOs, but when questioned, they exhibit little if any depth of understanding of the issue.
The truth will be known by all; but it will be too late for some. If the truth matters to you, I do encourage you to research the issue objectively and with an honest heart.
The only way you will find the truth is to ignore everyone's opinion and let the texts speak for themselves. Opinions are irrelevant. If you understand inductive reasoning, then apply inductive reasoning to the texts alone.
Take a King James and an NIV – or whatever text you think is better and examine their intrinsic merits. You will find that the new versions have errors, omissions and contradictions. The King James has none. No opinions – just facts.
Prove all things; hold fast that which is good. (I Thess 5:21)
Mike.
'MTR' REPLIED TO THIS POSTING AND WE INCORPORATED HIS REPLY INTO OUR RESPONSE BELOW, AS FOLLOWS:
MTR,
1. Thank you for taking time to write a response to my post. I understand how it is easy to feel uncomfortable when the things we believe are not readily accepted – especially if we have invested much of our lives in those beliefs.
2. I hesitate to answer your questions because they are off-track from the entire line of reasoning upon which I founded my post, and because my answers might probably lead our discussion further down contentious paths that ignore my original points and are therefore neither relevant to the issue, nor profitable.
3. However, as a habit I respond to sincere questions. So, I will answer these questions you asked in trust that you will honestly review what I originally said and will deal with the evidence, as presented, before posing any further arguments of opinion that are similarly off-track.
4. You asked: "Can I assume that you are a formally trained and skilled scholar in the area of textual criticism (lower and higher)?"
a. You need not assume that I am formally trained in textual criticism by any authority that you might accept, but this is the first comment you made that is off-track by its irrelevance. The biblical pattern (our final authority, right?) is that the scribes, the pharisees, the lawyers and learned Jewish leaders were notoriously consumed with their own intellects, and that the Lord chose the 'foolish things to confound the wise', (I Cor 1:27) including unlearned men who had no recognized scholarly credentials but for their time spent with Jesus (Acts 4:13). So, what things were academic gain for me, those things I count as loss for Christ. (Phil 3:7)
b. Moreover, your first comment was off-track logically, because – for example – one need not be a certified scholar or a recognized textual critic (of any degree) to understand that 1,300,000 is not equal to 1,100,000; nor to understand that 800,000 plus 500,000 does not equal 1,100,000. One only needs to understand English and Mathematics to approximately a grade-five level to understand such things, and to conclude thereby that the NIV (in this case) is in error.
c. And that is the basis of my statement that everyone's opinions are irrelevant; that the texts can speak for themselves; and that the error or truth of a text is self-evident intrinsically, without fallacious appeal to authority of any sort.
5. You asked: "Do you believe that it is possible that any English version will fully and perfectly represent the exact meaning of original language?"
a. I regret that a comprehensive answer to this is beyond the time that I can spare and quite probably beyond your patience to hear. (If not, prove me wrong by contacting me at our website and arranging for a personal study – answers@bereanresearchinstitute.com)
b. In brief, the answer is yes. Again, the scriptural pattern (our final authority, right?) is that the existence of originals (manuscripts, texts or otherwise) are unimportant to God or are – at least – not essential to his ability to preserve his perfect word forever; and that translations are equally considered by God to be scripture.
c. Assuming that you might object to these assertions, I will briefly cite a few of the scriptural proofs:
ORIGINALS:
1) The 'original' ten commandments were destroyed and a NEW 'original' was drafted that was undoubtedly perfectly consistent with the wording as well as the meaning of the first 'original'.
2) The first 'original' of the book of Jeremiah was destroyed by a heathen king (Jer 36:23), the second 'original' was tied to a stone and cast into the Euphrates river by Jeremiah at the command of God himself (Jer 51:63), and the only reason we know anything about these stories is that a third 'original' was drafted to recount all that was originally written along with these accounts of what subsequently occurred. So the scriptural practice is that God does not worship 'originals' and that he is still able to preserve his word forever.
TRANSLATIONS:
3) You appear to reject translations on the basis of a perceived inability to "fully and perfectly represent the exact meaning of the original language". As stated, I do not; and I defer to the scriptural pattern (our final authority, right?) for the evidence to support my reasoning.
4) In Genesis chapters 42-44, Joseph spoke to his brothers in Egyptian. His words were translated by a translator into Hebrew. (Gen 42:23) Those Hebrew words were then written in the Old Testament Hebrew which you accept as scripture. You can't have it both ways. This passage is either perfect in the original written Hebrew, or it has lost something because it is merely a Hebrew translation of the words that the Holy Ghost divinely inspired Joseph to speak in Egyptian (II Pet 1:21). (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect scripture?)
5) In Acts 22, Paul spoke to the Jews completely in the Hebrew tongue (Acts 21:40). But Luke wrote those words in Greek in the New Testament which you accept as scripture. You can't have it both ways. It is either perfect in the Greek New Testament, or it has lost something in the translation from Hebrew to Greek because it is merely a translation. (Or do you now agree with me that both the original and the translation are perfect scripture?)
6) Jesus and the Apostles frequently quoted Old Testament Hebrew passages that were recorded for us in the New Testament in Greek – BOTH of which you would accept as being perfect "original" scripture. You can't have it both ways. Either the New Testament Greek is perfect scripture, or else it is an imperfect translation of the Old Testament Hebrew and is therefore not perfect scripture in the New Testament Greek – even though the Holy Spirit has confirmed it to be so.
7) I could cite other passages where pagan kings and foreign persons (in Babylon, Persia, etc) spoke in other tongues that were translated into Hebrew or Greek, but more examples are unnecessary. Clearly, the scriptural pattern – as found in our final authority – is that God considers translations to be as pure and perfect as that which was spoken and/or written in the original tongue.
6. You asked: "Considering that many men, highly skilled in textual criticism and etymology have labored over the manuscripts to provide translations that is accurate to each generation, why should I trust your opinion over theirs?"
a. You shouldn't. But the fact that you asked this question demonstrates that you either ignored or didn't understand my point. ALL opinions are irrelevant.
b. It would be unreasonable of you to conclude (and dishonest if you persist in claiming) that I am asking you to accept my opinion of the merits of any text, when I say "let the texts speak for themselves", "opinions are irrelevant", "apply inductive reasoning (which, on the basis of its conformity to the laws of logic, transcends the influence of personal opinion – including mine).
c. For example, the text of Mark 1:2 is either accurate in the NIV and NASB, or it is not (the law of logic pertaining to the excluded middle prohibits any other conclusion. That is not opinion; it is a law of logic.) A quick look through Isaiah and Malachi proves that neither the NIV nor the NASB are accurate in the rendering of their texts at Mark 1:2 . However, as always in a case of conflict, the text of the King James IS accurate in this passage. That is not opinion either; it too is fact – proven by the same method.
d. So, if you continue with examination of passages as I have described herein, you will – by inductive reasoning (NOT by opinion, but again by conformity to the transcendent laws of logic) be able to identify a consistent pattern of data points that – in all provable cases of conflict between the King James Bible and ANY new version – the King James Bible is ALWAYS correct, true, accurate and consistent; and the new version is wrong, false, inaccurate and/or contradictory.
e. DON'T take my word for it. DON'T accept my opinion. Take the texts in your hands, examine them and prove it for yourself. Prove all things; hold fast that which is good (I Thess 5:21)
7. You asked: "Am I wrong in understanding that the KJV was written based on older versions of the Greek New Testament (Erasmus, Beza/Stephanus)? Knowing that we now have much older versions of the manuscripts than what was available in 1611, why should I assume that the KJV is better?"
a. I think you meant to write "later", which would actually be "younger" manuscripts; not "older".
b. Yes, most of the manuscripts underlying the King James Bible are later/younger/newer than manuscripts now underlying the new versions.
c. There are very good reasons for you to believe that only the King James is God's perfectly preserved word in English; not only that it is "better". [For simplicity, I have deleted here, for now, a great deal of explanation that we can discuss later, if necessary.]
d. As with anyone else's library, my bibles are very well-worn – or are retired now; whereas my books of Mormon and NWTs, etc are in nearly pristine condition. There is no doubt that future archaeologists (who are unlikely to exist, given our proximity to the Lord's return) a couple of hundred years from now would find that the bibles in my library are much later/younger/newer copies than the 'older' books of Mormon and NWTs, etc. Should they conclude, therefore, (based on the ages) that the books of Mormon are true and that the bibles are false? Certainly not. So, then why should you?
e. The more interesting question would be, why would you rely on Sinaiticus, for example, when it has undergone so many strike-overs (up to ten on a passage) that someone saw fit to throw it into the wastebasket at St Catharines monastery from whence it was recovered?
f. Why should you assume the King James is 'better'? Well, another reason is that these "older", "more reliable" manuscripts to which you refer contradict each other frequently.
g. Why should you assume the King James is 'better'? Well, because the people who refer to these "older" and "more reliable" manuscripts inconsistently apply the rules of age and reliability. For example, when the Vaticanus reading conflicts with the King James reading, the new version editors will accept the "older", "more reliable" Vaticanus. But when the Vaticanus AGREES with the King James reading, the new version editors will REJECT the "older", "more reliable" Vaticanus in favour of the "younger", "less reliable" Sinaiticus that DISAGREES with the King James. Now, if that dishonesty doesn't bother you, then we don't have much more to discuss.
8. You asked: "The real problem I have (perhaps I am completely misunderstanding your post) is that it would appear you are making the argument that the KJV is not just subjectively better (the flow and style of the phrasing as well as accuracy), but objectively the "ONLY" true and perfect translation. If that is the case, by what scripture are you making that claim?"
a. Well, you can read my words quite easily yourself; of course, I wouldn't intentionally make such a foolish claim. What I said, and maintain, is that the King James bible is the ONLY word of God in ENGLISH. (I would like to believe that your omission of the qualifier was simply an oversight and not 'bait' for some ridiculous KJVO misconception that the King James Bible is the ONLY true and perfect translation.)
b. Further to your inference, however, the contributions of rhythm, meter, rhyme and syllabic construction are, in fact, very much measurable characteristics that can lead to the same objective conclusions – in addition to those characteristics of textual veracity and consistency – to which you allude.
c. By what scripture am I making my claim? Come on, MTR. The bait on that one is as obvious as a Jehovah's Witness asking if I believe in "the Trinity". Of course Ps 12:6,7 is scriptural proof that God would preserve his pure words forever; and it does not appear to specify how and where he would accomplish that, does it?
d. But the biblical pattern (our final authority, right?) is that God did not specify in the Old Testament that he intended to write his words in Greek in the New Testament, nor how he intended to preserve those words, so we are left to examine the intrinsic merits of the text itself – as I proposed – and to exclude all texts as candidates of God's word if and when it is proven that any has an error, omission, or contradiction in it.
e. In this short response alone, I have proven the NIV and the NASB to be unsuitable candidates for the word of God. The burden of proof would remain on you at this point to apply the same test to the text of the King James until you are satisfied that you can conclude, by inductive reasoning that the text of the King James bible is God's ONLY pure word in English.
9. You wrote: "1 Thess 5:21 in context deals with prophesy (see v. 20) not future translations of the very epistle that is being written."
a. That is silly. I Thess 5:16-22 is a LIST of commands. By your logic, verse 21 "in context" has just as much to do with the proving of that which is evil (verse 22) as is does with prophesy (verse 20). Otherwise, we are only to "rejoice" (verse 16) with prophesy, "pray without ceasing" (verse 17) when prophesying, and abstain from all appearance of evil (verse 22) when prophesying.
b. By your logic, we would also only be forbidden from stealing (Ex 20:15) and killing (Ex 20:13) in the "context" of committing adultery (Ex 20:14)!!
c. On the contrary, all of these commands are universal. We are to prove ALL things; hold fast that which is good. I recommend that you obey this command, in the first place by proving that all new versions are NOT the words of God, on the basis of their errors, omissions and/or contradictions. (This is a very easy task, and I have put you well on your way – having already done the NIV and NASB for you.)
10. You wrote: "Glad you stopped by PM's blog!"
Thank you. I probably won't find my way back – at least not often; so, if you would like to engage in further conversation, please feel free to contact me by email through our website: answers@bereanresearchinstitute.com or at least notify me of your posted reply.
11. You can TRUST every word in God's Word, the King James Bible!
