The King James Bible Defended

[Off-Grid Organics]

Do you mean why the kjv translators put the word Easter in, instead of passover?

Yes, pretty blatant tampering, IMO. No matter what Scriptures you choose, you still remain at the mercy of the translators for what you are reading. Prove ALL things.

[Wiskey Reb]

I also understand and can sympathize with the felt need to maintain a particular version as being G-d's preserved word. But maintaining it in such a way causes more problems than it solves. The really big elephant in the room is that isolating kjv and its mother sources in such a way as is done serves to nullify the main body of evidence for the genuineness and historicity of the NT, namely, that criteria widely used by virtually all experts to determine the accuracy and historicity of a text. Having a certain degree of variation in texts originating from different sources, while not altering it substantively, is evidence of authenticity. To have every text from a variety of philosophic, doctrinal and regional sources be identical is evidence of forced manipulation and forgery. Our texts containing these subtle differences proves that they were not tampered with in any unnatural way. A few alterations and shifts in expression or meaning is expected and anticipated.

So, the presence of the word Easter in the text is evidence of a late translation snafu, but in the end it serves as evidence of textual authenticity, albeit not textual perfection and immutability of KJV.

[Wiskey Reb]

It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the night of April 14th not the entire week.

No it's not, as evidenced by the Luke 22:1 reference above.

[Wiskey Reb]

Yes, pretty blatant tampering, IMO. No matter what Scriptures you choose, you still remain at the mercy of the translators for what you are reading. Prove ALL things.

We're doomed to using someones tradition, and if not someone else's, one we develop on our own. There just is no way around study and exogesis.

[ReticentEnigma]

What "KJV-onlyism" Is

Basically, KJV-onlyism is the belief that only the King James Version (KJV) of the Bible is the "true" Bible. That is, that it is totally inerrant, totally infallible, and totally inspired - not even one word was translated except as guided by the Holy Spirit and that any deviation of the words, even minutely, constitues changing God's word, as the text of the KJV is exactly how God intended the Scriptures. It equates the word of God, in the very real sense of the autographs, with the King James Version.

A large part of the KJV-only position hinges on "preservation". Supporters of KJV-onlyism say that God promised to preserve word-for-word the Scriptures, and that the KJV is the fulfillment of that promise. Unfortunately for both sides of the debate, we don't have ANY original manuscripts of the Scriptures, which would put an end one way or another to this whole debate. What we do have are copies and copies of copies, etc. The problem with the KJV-only position of "preservation" is that even the KJV differs from the Hebrew and Greek it was translated from, thus where are the "word-for-word preserved" Scriptures prior to 1611? Also, even if you believe God promised to preserve the Scriptures word-for-word, there is no mention in the Bible about this promise being fulfilled 1600 years after Christ, and then only in English, and only in one translation.

Basically, the common beliefs that define "KJV-only" are:

- the idea that there are no errors or problems of translation in the KJV.
- the idea that there are no internal errors or problems in the text of the KJV.
- the idea that any changes of words of the KJV constitutes changing God's word (and thus no other English translations are "the word of God")
- God promised to preserve the Scriptures word for word throughout the centuries.
- the idea that the KJV translators were divinely guided, and thus the words they used were given to them by the Holy Spirit to be implemented without any alternates.

There is a range of KJV-onlyism. The following beliefs are held by SOME, not all KJV-only supporters, but you'll run into these beliefs before long if you get into the issue in any detail:

- the idea that all other translations are inspired by Satan.
- the idea that all translators and readers of new versions have ulterior motives
- the idea that Christians who use other versions are spiritual cripples at best, and destined for Hell at worst.
- the idea that where the KJV differs from the Greek and Hebrew from which it was translated, the English is an improvement over the Greek and Hebrew.
- the idea that English is the language God chose to give us Scripture in, and if anyone on Earth wants inerrant Scripture, they must learn English so they can use the KJV.
- the idea that we no longer need the Greek and Hebrew.
- the idea that the KJV translators were "super-human" (i.e. much more qualified than any translators before or after them).
- the idea that the KJV translators were under divine inspiration when translating, but totally out to lunch when they wrote the preface, marginal notes, and cross-references
- the idea that someone who doesn't agree with them about the status of the KJV is automatically a "heretic" or an "apostate", and is certainly "unteachable".

Those views are not held by all KJV-only supporters, but they are quite common in the KJV-only side of the debate.

What "KJV-onlyism" Isn't

KJV-onlyism is not simply a preference for the KJV. Many people, myself included, use and love the KJV without being KJV-only. Nor is KJV-onlyism the belief that the KJV is simply superior to all other translations but still has problems.

Some people that support the KJV because they believe its underlying text base is the closest to the "originals". People that believe this are not "KJV-only" - they can be described as "KJV-preferred". They are people who simply prefer the KJV over all other versions, while agreeing that the ideas of the translation itself being "inerrant, infallible", exclusively "the word of God", etc., are not justified.

Dive right in...

So, if you're new to the issue and have an interest in it, dive right in. It is a wonderful medium to learn about Scripture, no matter which side you end up agreeing with. I encourage you to examine each specific argument from either side in as much detail as you can. Ask God for guidance. Ask you pastor for help. Also, remember that both sides are Christians and brothers and sisters in Christ - try to act like it! This is an important issue, and combining that with deep-running emotional attachments to ideas, people can take things personally and sometimes react in ways they shouldn't.

The issue is huge, and my pages only scratch the surface. I hope they are enough to whet your appetite and to get you thinking about the issue. If you want to discuss any aspect of the issue, email me or visit this great discussion forum. Above all, keep the right attitude and you will surely be blessed in your studies.

God bless!

This outline is designed to refute the view that the King James Version (KJV) is the only modern Bible on earth that is 100% accurate and error free.
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
QUOTE FROM THE LINK ABOVE:
1.Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.
2.In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and NONE of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!
3.Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes.
4.These advocates reject all others Bibles that post-date the KJV.
5.They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also in the translation process.
6.This claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible translation.
7.Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
8.We feel that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.
9.The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In the matter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were used in the translation of subsequent versions (post-1881)} (The KJV Debate: A Plea for Realism, D.A. Carson)

[ReticentEnigma]

In the original King James Bible, there was a letter to the readers from the translators:

“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 uttereth 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, nor peradventure so fitly for phrase, nor so expressly for sense, everywhere. For it is confessed, that things are to take their denomination of the greater part; and a natural man could say, Verum ubi multa nitent in carmine, non ego paucis offendor maculis, etc. [Horace.] A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else, there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all) [James 3:2] also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it. For whatever was perfect under the Sun, where Apostles or Apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand? The Romanists therefore in refusing to hear, and daring to burn the Word translated, did no less than despite the spirit of grace, from whom originally it proceeded, and whose sense and meaning, as well as man’s weakness would enable, it did express.”2



The King James translators specifically argued that the Scripture should not be forbidden to be made current by introducing new translations, even if these newer translations may not be perfect. They also readily admitted that their own translation was imperfect;



“…it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother or neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.”3



The translators well recognized that numerous portions of Scripture, yet not concerning salvation, are uncertain and/or questionable. Because of this they opted to include notes in the margin to alert the reader of uncertain and questionable passages and possible alternate readings. Unfortunately many of the newer — revised — King James Bibles have removed these marginal notes along with this letter to the reader. The translators also recognized that multiple translations were beneficial. They did not condemn previous translations, nor did they frown upon future translations.

[CaryC]

KJV-onlyism is not simply a preference for the KJV. Many people, myself included, use and love the KJV without being KJV-only.

Same here. Thanks.

[Rob_0126]

Yes, pretty blatant tampering, IMO. No matter what Scriptures you choose, you still remain at the mercy of the translators for what you are reading. Prove ALL things.

Just because I dont know exactly why the kjv translators chose Easter, doesnt mean it was wrong.

[somoprepper08]

When I am studying something, I usually go to many different versions of the Word. My preference is also KJV. I also use the Strong's Concordance.

[Sherree]

When I am studying something, I usually go to many different versions of the Word. My preference is also KJV. I also use the Strong's Concordance.

Same here. When studying, I like to look at different translations (I don't like any of the newer translations). If in doubt still, I go straight to the Greek and Hebrew. We also like to read some of the older commentaries and writings.