Published On: 8 March, 2011|By |

Over the last several weeks I’ve published three posts celebrating the 400th anniversary of the publication of the King James Version.

These posts express my genuine respect for this monumental translation. I have experienced great joy in writing them. I could have written many more and may still do so at some point. But it is with great soberness that I compose this fourth and final post in this celebratory series.

Errors

In recent decades, the legacy of the King James Version has been sullied by various errors which have sprung up primarily in Fundamentalist circles. These errors were in no way the fault of those godly men who translated the KJV. Indeed, these men anticipated and argued rigorously against these errors four hundred years ago in their preface to the new translation.

Nevertheless, these errors have arisen and persisted until many of them have found a place in the very doctrinal statements of Fundamentalist churches around the world.

Some of these errors are fairly innocuous such as the notion that we still use the 1611 edition of the King James Version. I own a copy of the 1611 edition and would encourage those espousing this error to purchase a copy. Doing so should quickly set the matter to rest. Another such error is the suggestion that the KJV is not under copyright. While this is true in some parts of the world, in the United Kingdom the copyright to the KJV has been held by the Crown for four hundred years and remains with the Crown today.

Other of these errors are more insidious such as the notion that the King James Version is the only translation that is faithful to the underlying texts. A similar error is the idea that the KJV is the only translation which has been translated from the textus receptus, the collation of Greek manuscripts used by the translators of the KJV. In reality, many New Testament translations have been translated from this text including the Tyndale Bible, the Coverdale Bible, the Matthew Bible, the Great Bible, the Geneva Bible, the Bishop’s Bible, Young’s Literal Translation, the New King James Version, the Third Millennium Bible, the 21st Century King James Version, and a dozen or so lesser known translations/revisions.

Yet another error which persists is the notion that the KJV New Testament is translated from the Greek text which most closely represents the majority of Greek manuscripts. While the textus receptus from which the KJV was translated does indeed represent the majority reading in most places, it also differs with the majority reading in multiplied hundreds of instances. In fact, the true majority reading can only be found in print in The Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text with Apparatus edited by Hodges and Farstad. This text has yet to be used—to my knowledge—as the basis for an English translation.

The final and most serious error I will address is the false teaching that in the process of translation the King James Version was breathed out by God (inspired) just as the originals were during and before the time of the apostles and therefore, that the KJV authoritatively corrects the Scriptures in the original languages. This false doctrine has caused untold damage among the churches of God and is supported by—and supports—dozens of erroneous teachings about the inspiration, preservation, and transmission of God’s Word.

No honour in error

We do the King James Version no honour when we pluck it from its historical context and exalt it to the exclusion of all other translations. Indeed, to do so undermines everything the King James Version is and stands for.

So I urge you, brothers, to jealously guard your pure desire for the truth. I invite you to rejoice and celebrate God’s gift of the King James Version, but I also urge you to scrutinise those claims which would elevate the King James Version to a place of doctrine and exclusivity.

For most of history, access to God’s word has been largely limited to the wealthy and the elite. Few peoples have possessed translations in their own common language. We must never lose sight of what we have. May we read it so we may learn to live it and love it and rejoice in the God who gave it.

Grace to you.

 

About the Author: Jason Harris

Jason loves to communicate God's word both in the local church and at conferences and retreats. Jason has been involved with Worship Music since 1996 and InFocus since 2005. Jason has degrees in theology, music, accounting, and research and is currently a PhD candidate and lecturer in the College of Business, Law, and Governance at James Cook University, Cairns. Jason is also a pastor at CrossPoint Church. You can contact Jason at jason@jasonharris.com.au.

52 Comments

  1. Evelyn Matzko 8 March, 2011 at 6:17 am

    Thank You ! I agree with all you have stated and so enjoy memorizing this text !

  2. PJ 8 March, 2011 at 7:55 am

    Jason, very much enjoyed this article and the whole series. I think you summed up the issues very well in this post – many thanks for your thoughtful prose.

    Just one point – you said…

    “A similar error is the idea that the KJV is the only translation which has been translated from the textus receptus…In reality, many NT translations have been translated from this text including …the New King James Version, the Third Millennium Bible, the 21st Century King James Version.”

    You are correct in identifying this error, however do I think the problem some people have, particularly with the NKJV is that it is often passed off as being ‘exclusively’ translated from the TR like the KJV and therefore just a straight update in modern English. That is generally true but not wholly true…as the preface to the 1997 edition states –

    “… because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the footnotes.”

    I’m not sure if later editions do the same. (do you know?)

    While CT and MT variants are only placed in the footnotes, it it is clear from their use that the NKJV is a little more than a straight update of the KJV into modern English. Other textual sources have been consulted and appear on the page and this is why some take issue with the NKJV.

    People will have their own opinion about the use of footnotes like this in modern translations and that’s fine. I wonder if they create doubt and confusion as much as they provide clarification.Which reading do you go with as a preacher/teacher/Bible student seeking to interpret the Word properly?

  3. Jason Harris 8 March, 2011 at 12:14 pm

    @PJ,

    Yes, the NKJV does point out where other collations of the Greek manuscripts (such as the Hodges-Farstad and Nestle-Aland) differ with Erasmus’ collation. But I would suggest that this is well within the heritage of the KJV translators themselves.

    For instance, my copy of the 1611 edition contains many thousands of footnotes pointing out alternate translations, and most relevantly, textual variants. Additionally, the KJV translators did not choose one particular edition of the textus receptus to translate but rather used a whole variety of editions as well as considering particular manuscripts. In other words, they used every collation they could get their hands on.

    jh

  4. PJ 8 March, 2011 at 1:19 pm

    Take your point Jason and agree that a number of editions of the TR were used by the KJV translators.

    However, some would argue that manuscripts even codices that Erasmus rejected as unreliable in putting together the TR have been used in compiling the CT and MT. And so while their use in the footnotes of NKJV might fall ‘within the heritage’ of the translators of the KJV, they are not ‘within the heritage’ of the TR at all. This leads some to cast doubt on the claims of the NKJV to be just that – a ‘new’ KJV.

    (I haven’t done enough research to know if this conjecture is correct – what do you think?)

  5. Jason Harris 8 March, 2011 at 2:31 pm

    Yes, you’ve correctly pointed out that the real issue in the acceptance or rejection of the NKJV is the “heritage of the TR.”

    As far as the accuracy of the conjecture that Erasmus rejected certain manuscripts, I am not aware that this occurred in any instance whatsoever. He did, however, employ textual criticism (this is the very definition of what it means to edit a collation of manuscripts). An example would be the Comma Johanneum in 1 John 5 which Erasmus did not include in his first two editions of the textus receptus.

    As far as the “big two” manuscripts which the more recent collations take significantly into account, Codex Sinaiticus was not fully recovered until 1859 and so was not known to Erasmus. Erasmus did consult the second, Codex Vaticanus, in the collation of the textus receptus, but he did so only by asking others who had access to it for information on certain readings (for instance, the Comma Johanneum where Erasmus chose the Codex Vaticanus reading). Erasmus did not actually have access to the document itself.

  6. PJ 8 March, 2011 at 3:19 pm

    Thanks Jason…great discussion. Looking forward to more of the same…

    As far as NKJV goes – I found this very interesting –

    http://www.trinitarianbiblesociety.org/site/articles/a123.pdf

    Its published by the Trinitarian Bible Society – so you know where they’re coming from. (Mind you, they’ve been around since 1831 so they have some standing in these matters.) I think its a worthwhile contribution to the debate – particularly the section on the NT.

  7. Al 8 March, 2011 at 6:53 pm

    I’m sure most of us are aware of the apologetics used to retort against the supposed errors Jason has pointed out so I won’t bother repeating them but I wish to point out the below:

    I think the main issue in all of this is whether or not the TR and the MT are more reliable than the NA27, the UBS4 or the BHS. Even without the above argumentation, the main premise of a KJO position is the supposed textual superiority of the TR and MT. Even if these points were conceded (which they wouldn’t be) the position would stand on its own with the above premise.

    As for footnotes, all they are pointing to is variant readings. It’s not like they’ve got an agenda. I think it’s important for all Christians to know the textual issues behind the texts. Issues in translation, let alone textual criticism are something they need to be aware of. Otherwise they end up just taking their parents/elders/teachers word for it and that’s the beginning of Baptist Pope Syndrome. We’re regulating understanding to the clergy because these issues are too big to handle for us mere peasant folk. As well, understanding the differences in translations and texts prevents mishandling of the Bible. I’ve had many a preacher misunderstand a text because of their KJO position that negated knowing or understanding Hebrew and Koine Greek.

    As for Erasmus, even if he did reject texts because he considered them spurious, he had only a handful of texts available to him, an amount insignificant to what is available today. In other words, his opinion doesn’t hold that much weight (that is not to say his opinion on anything is worthless, it’s just a simple fact that he was basing his judgements on limited resources; if I remember right he took the text of Revelations from quotations out of a commentary for example). Now if Metzger rejected some texts, that’s a different story..

  8. Stan 10 March, 2011 at 12:15 pm

    At the risk of being labeled a ‘troll’ (again) by Jason Harris (Apollos from Alexandria comment by JH 14th October 2010 @ 2.50 pm) I post this for truth’s sake.

    Let’s see what he didn’t tell you:

    The 1611 Edition:
    He didn’t tell you there were four EDITIONS of the 1611KJB published in 1629, 1638, 1762 and 1769 which corrected PRINTING ERRORS and STANDARDIZED SPELLING! There was NO textual alterations other than the obvious typographical printing errors. Furthermore, if one was to read publically (“faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God”) the 1611 Edition (recommended by JH) there would be NO difference in the text when compared to a KJB printed today, printing errors notwithstanding. What I hold in my hand today, is a 1769 edition of the 1611 KJB 2004 printing. There is NO error here!

    Copyright:
    He didn’t tell you the “Crown” copyright HAD nothing to do with limited printing. There was no commercial/financial copyright on the KJB until the 19th century when it was commercialized in Great Britain to give the Revised Version a “chance”. There is no other ‘Bible’ translation that allows a person to quote, cite, reproduce or print a copy without having to pay anyone for the privilege. There is NO error here!

    Faithfulness to the underlying texts:
    He didn’t tell you that the KJB translators were the ONLY translators to use extant vernacular Bibles in addition to the Hebrew and Greek texts. He didn’t tell you that the post 1611 translations he listed ALSO contain ASV readings from the corrupt Westcott-Hort text and Siniaticus/Vaticanus mss. There is NO error here!

    The Greek NT by Hodges & Farstad:
    He didn’t tell you Hodges & Farstad follow the WRONG Greek texts. This is most evident in the book of Revelation. Their ‘majority text’ is based on the collation by von Soden of approx. 400 Gr NT mss.-hardly the majority! This probably explains why no one has used it for a translation-but give it time I guess. There is NO error here!

    Inspiration:
    He didn’t tell you that the ‘scripture’ in 2 Tim 2:16 refers to copies and translations and NOT the originals. Read verse 15 in context! There is NO error here?

    There is ERROR here:
    It’s interesting to note Jason what your beloved ESV omits in Rom 13:9
    For the commandments, “You shall not commit adultery, You shall not murder, You shall not steal, You shall not covet,” and any other commandment, are summed up in this word: “You shall love your neighbor as yourself.”

    That’s right “Thou shalt not bear false witness” (Rom 13:9 KJB 1611).
    I agree “No honour in error”!

  9. Al 10 March, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    And here we have the apologetics.

    It seems “coincidental” that you mention that it clarifies not only spelling errors but also “printing errors”. Wouldn’t you agree that if you admit there are printing errors, pretty much anything could be excused? It’s like Ruckman’s claims of reinspiration. The reason the KJV disagrees with the Greek text is because it “corrected” it. How laughable.

    The copyright argument against the KJV is a weak one I admit. Personally I don’t think holy texts should be copyrighted but nevertheless that is the case. Translations like the NET and the ESV are quite open (with the NET having no copyright that I am aware of) which is good but others should follow suit.

    The following 2 points are textual issues which I couldn’t be bothered arguing against other than to say all biblical texts are corrupt, it’s just to what extant.

    It’s an assumption on your part that the context refers to the Septuagint. Even so, the Septuagint was a shady translation which is kind of attacking your own cause but anyways, who am I to tell you how to argue?

    The ESV doesn’t include the text because it is a spurious interpolation. You should be familiar with the warning in Revelations, yes?

    For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: -Revelations 22:18

  10. Steve 10 March, 2011 at 6:00 pm

    Really enjoying your series on the King James Version. Can I add that the Spanish Reina Valera Bible was also translated from the Masoretic Text and Textus Receptus (1550 Stephanus) much earlier than the KJV, in 1569. It then underwent various revisions, the 1960 being the most popular and beloved. I wish the KJV had undergone a similar revision process, especially to remove some of the archaisms and frankly, embarrasing words and phrases. Which brings up another objection to the KJV inspiration heresy, namely, what about Bibles in other languages? Are they the word of God as much as the KJV? Or has the English speaking world had the monopoly on the word of God for 400 years. I think not.
    I wonder if the KJV inspiration heresy (sorry, I don’t know what else to call it) stems from a desire for stability and concreteness in a post-modern, relativistic world.

    Looking forward to more posts on this wonderful translation of the word of God Jason.

  11. PJ 10 March, 2011 at 7:30 pm

    Steve – great point.

    Was the Critical Text, Majority Text, or any other collation of manuscripts other than TR used in the revision of the Spanish Bible? Or was it simply a modernising of the Spanish used in the translation?

  12. Jason Harris 10 March, 2011 at 9:12 pm

    @Steve, Yeah, would be interesting to do some posts on the TR sometime. Luther’s German translation was also made from the TR and continues to hold influence in that context.

    @PJ, From what I understand, there is a Reina Valera Only faction within the Spanish speaking Fundamentalist community.

    @Stan, In the blogosphere, a “troll” is “someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community.” I believe that is what you did in the other post.

    This comment addressed the post directly and such discussion is always welcome.

    Grace to you.

  13. Steve 10 March, 2011 at 10:52 pm

    @PJ, from what I understand, the 1960 revision of the Reina Valera did use the modern texts in the process. From memory, our bibles generally did not have variant readings like most of the modern english versions, so we never questioned it. We just assumed it was the word of God, which it is. The language was also modernised but it is still very formal.

    @Jason, yes there is a Reina Valera Only faction. I believe it is not native to the Spanish speaking Christians but was imported from the U.S. I remember a Chick tract in Spanish that pushed this doctrine, but it did not say which revision. The Chick website seems to indicate that all the revisions up to the 1960 are acceptable. They also seem to have come up with their own translation the RVG 2010. It would be interesting to read it and compare.

  14. Matt McMorris 11 March, 2011 at 1:17 am

    Very interesting post, Jason. It was well thought out and presented.

    I would like to encourage you in your use of the term “fundamentalists,” however. There are guys in every “circle” of christianity who would hold to positions that no all would agree with. In this case, I think you have selected the vocal minority and lumped everyone in together.

    It seems to me that it would be better to discuss the issues and not the groups. In fact, nothing you said in the post had anything to do with fundamentalists. You merely criticized the whole bunch right off the get go. Rule number one… never criticize your audience.

    I enjoyed reading it, but I am would consider myself a theological fundamentalist. I stand firm on the doctrines and am discusted at much that takes place in the movement. However, I refuse to throw the baby out with the bath water.

    Argue the issues. I don’t mind that, even if I disagree with you. But leave the name calling and finger pointing to those who desire to create division.

    Thanks, my friend!

  15. stan 11 March, 2011 at 11:10 am

    @Jason Harris, thanks for your definition of “troll”.

    The article was titled “Apollos from Alexandria”.

    The article mentioned Apollos and also the “Septuagint” both of which I addressed in my comment.

  16. stan 11 March, 2011 at 12:02 pm

    @Al Not at all. No one has ever claimed (to my knowledge)the printers or printing methods were in anyway inspired, obviously these errors occurred and were corrected. The point is the KJB printed today is textually identical to the one printed in 1611, the so called thousands of changes refer to standardization of spelling (eg Wycliff, Wyclif, Wyclife,Wycliffe still referred to the same person)and printing errors and not textual changes.

    You think reinspiration is laughable? I hope you are not laughing at God as well because he sure believes in it! Ruckman doesn’t teach the KJB corrects the ORIGINAL Greek manuscripts(which you have never seen or have you?), but the extant Greek mss-I agree with him wholeheartedly and so does the Encyclopaedia Brittanica!

    So if ALL biblical texts are corrupt how can anyone “preach the word” if the “word” doesn’t exist anywhere on earth in pure form? Who is this Final Authority which decides to which extent the biblical texts are corrupt? The Greek scholars? now that’s laughable.

    Why didn’t you quote verse 19?
    “And if any man shall TAKE AWAY from the words of the book of this prophecy , God shall take away his part out of the book of life….”

    Here’s a question for you. Can you prove without any shadow of a doubt, that ALL 27 books of the NT were originally written in Greek?

  17. stan 11 March, 2011 at 12:10 pm

    @Steve Of course the KJVO position is not heresy but biblical, however, you do make a good point regarding vernacular Bibles.

    Is God obligated to give us His inspired word in every language known to man or only in English, the universal language of the end-times. It is certainly something to think about and is deserving of further study.

  18. Al 11 March, 2011 at 2:24 pm

    Stan, you realize the irony in that the printing error excuse could very well hide actual changes to the text? What I mean is (I can find you examples when I get home to my library) you have multiple places where there were changes, albeit minor ones and a few major ones, in each case I could dismiss the differences as “printer errors” even if they weren’t.

    The same applies to the Greek manuscripts argument. You realize how this is a self serving purpose that is designed to be undisprovable?

    It’s like me saying there is an invisible pink unicorn living in my garage that only I can see. This argument is used because you are very well aware of the textual discrepancies but are unwilling to to follow the that path down to its logical conclusion. Instead you do backflips and gymnastic contortions to somehow fit the KJV as the descended of the original texts.

    No 2 manuscripts agree. All of them are corrupt. Most have spelling errors, some interpolations, others missing text and more rarely still changes of words. I personally have no issue with this information. It is you who must reconcile that information. You scoff at biblical scholars using textual criticism to uncover the original text but you expect people to take by “faith” that the KJV was reinspired and that until 1611, God took it easy not worry about preserving his holy word? What’s more laughable? I’d rather take the word (and “final authority”) of someone using a scientific process than some crackpot fundamentalist.

    Also, regarding your last point, I ask you the same question and in fact, take it a step further, can you prove that there hasn’t been any significant textual changes from the time the manuscripts have been written? The answer the latter is of course, no. The answer to the former is you can read the Greek and tell quite easily that those who wrote it were Aramaic speakers due to the syntax (they use Greek with an Aramaic word order basically). While it’s impossible to rule out a translation, it’s unlikely especially for the epistles and the gospel of John (he does word plays that wouldn’t work in Aramaic or Hebrew, much like they aren’t conveyed in English).

  19. Jason Harris 11 March, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    @Matt, Thanks for the comment bro. Great to hear from you! Would love to catch up some day on this side of the pond or that.

    Your recent post on Fundamentalism is on my “to read” list and I’m keen to see what you have to say. But I got the general rift which seemed to be that you reject the excesses of Fundamentalism, but still count yourself a Fundamentalist. If I’ve understood you accurately, then you and I are in the same boat. I am unashamedly a fundamentalist by conviction and a Fundamentalist by heritage.

    That said, this issue is not one that is often found outside of fundamentalism. It is, as I said in the post, “primarily” a fundamentalist issue. I did not intend to suggest that all Fundamentalists hold to these errors. That would be the fallacy of composition (a characteristic of the part is inferred to define the whole). But I do mean to say that it is primarily Fundamentalists who have believed, preached, and perpetuated these errors.

    There is a significant proportion of Fundamentalists who do not hold to these errors. I’m very thankful for this and would count myself among this group. But we Fundamentalists need to hold each other to account. We cannot complain about being chastised by outsiders if we insiders won’t do necessary house cleaning.

  20. Jason Harris 11 March, 2011 at 3:11 pm

    @Stan, I believe you are mistaken about the differences between the 1611 and the 1769 editions of the KJV. I believe you’ll find that the following passages demonstrate substantive changes (not printing errors and not spelling standardisation).

    Deuteronomy 26:1
    Josh 13:29
    Psalm 69:32
    Jer 49:1
    Matt 16:16
    1 Cor 4:9
    1 John 5:12
    Ruth 3:15
    Mark 10:18
    1 Peter 2:1
    1 John 5:12
    Gen 39:16
    Num 6:14
    1 Sam 18:27
    Job 39:30
    John 15:20

    Also, what gives you the impression that English is God’s intended “universal language of the end times”? Couldn’t Paul have said this of Greek? Couldn’t Wycliff have said this of Latin? Where is this idea of a “universal language of the end times” found in Scripture?

  21. Al 11 March, 2011 at 6:40 pm

    Stan, I’ve been pondering on why you mentioned whether or not the NT books could have been translations and it’s just hit me you might use the Eusebius quote of Papias(? Might be wrong about the name, getting a bit rusty) and the whole gospel to the Hebrews written in their own tongue and then translated as best as they could passage?

    If you are, it’s more likely that quote is refering to the gospel to the Hebrews (you know, the heretical Ebionite gospel?) than the gospel of Matthew, not that I have anything invested in it one way or the other but I’ll await to hear what you have to say.

    Also, Jason beat me to the passages. He and I by the look of the references were using the same book :)

  22. David (Lumpy) Milson 11 March, 2011 at 7:07 pm

    Jason, I am getting confused (not a big job you may well say). For the sake of clarity, would it be worth asking people to use their whole name on their comments?

  23. Jason Harris 11 March, 2011 at 9:28 pm

    @Al, I think I collated that list from several sources but it was so long ago I have no idea. The misconception is so common that I kept that list in my wallet for several years because I used it so often. =P

    @Lumpy, Yeah, I’ve avoided creating a commenting policy so far, and with any luck I’ll continue to get away with it. But yes, we do prefer that posters use their full name or at least include a link that identifies them. On the other hand, if someone is making a thoughtful and sincere contribution to the discussion but doesn’t feel comfortable posting under their full name, that’s fair enough… for now. =)

  24. Al 11 March, 2011 at 9:41 pm

    Lumpy, If I’m not mistaken Mr. Lumpy, you’ve been anonymous for a little while now. Had a change of heart? :)

    Jason, I thought you grabbed that from Mr. White’s book but guess not! Now keeping the list in your wallet is dedication my friend! :P

  25. David (Lumpy) Milson 12 March, 2011 at 4:53 pm

    Al, I thought everybody knew who I was. As for you, well every Tom, Dick and Harry is called Al these days! Is your real name Paul Simon?

  26. Al 12 March, 2011 at 7:14 pm

    So your question was an attempt to find out my identity? I feel privileged :) Rest assured I am using my real name and I am identifiable to those whom need to know. Not that my identity should affect what information (or depending on your view, disinformation) I contribute to the discussions. Neither does my ‘anonymity’ prevent measures of disciplinary actions if I am not on my best behavior! :)

    Anyways, back unto the discussion. I’m waiting anxiously for Stan to return :D

  27. David (Lumpy) Milson 12 March, 2011 at 7:45 pm

    et Al, no worries mate, I understand that there are many reasons for wanting anonimity! However, despite your overinflated opinion of my reasons for wanting to know your name, I am sorry to inform you that I was merely trying to be funny in my reply to you. I am a waisted comical genius. Do ya get it?

    @Jason, Got that on the lack of policy, I see your point but don’t necessarily agree.

    @All, have a great Sunday.

  28. Al 12 March, 2011 at 8:19 pm

    My comment was in jest, but it did seem to me that you’re interested in knowing the identities of those posting (How’s that saying go? “Every joke is a half truth” or something like that?) . Whether that was in general or with someone specific in mind, that is not something I know :)

    I just thought it was somewhat humorous coming from someone who posted with an alias until he decided he wanted to know the identities of people. Hence my question about the change of mind :)

    Anyways, I do not wish to further derail this fascinating discussion with Stan :)

  29. Jason Harris 12 March, 2011 at 8:28 pm

    @Lumpy, “et Al” “@All” CLASSIC!!!

    http://www.thefreedictionary.com/et+al.

    @Al, Yeah, it’s funny because most people up North are more likely to know who it is if he uses “Lumpy” rather than his real name. =P

  30. Al 12 March, 2011 at 8:42 pm

    Fair enough :) Not that I know who it is anyways with his real name :P I also had to chuckle at the wordplay there. I was assuming he was making a joke with the Paul Simon reference as well but I have no idea who that is either :)

  31. Albert Garlando 13 March, 2011 at 8:12 pm

    Dear MR Lumpy :)

    At the risk of posting something COMPLETELY off topic…

    Art thou he, formerly of Ingham and Cairns? Son of Kevin etc?

    If so… long time!
    G’day!

    If not… well – g’day anyway :)

    A.

  32. David (Lumpy) Milson 13 March, 2011 at 9:50 pm

    I knew I shouldn’t have used my full name.

  33. Jason Harris 14 March, 2011 at 1:30 am

    @Lumpy, btw, Albert Garlando is not the same person as the “Al” that’s been commenting.

  34. David (Lumpy) Milson 14 March, 2011 at 7:58 am

    Jason, btw, is that something from the 1611? Can you say it in a language that I can understand?

  35. Jason Harris 14 March, 2011 at 11:25 am

    btw=by the way

  36. Aussie Bible-Believer 14 March, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Instead of wasting your time trying to correct God’s word (KJB) why don’t you and the members of your churches stand for righteousness on Saturday 19th at Town Hall, Sydney.

    [Link removed. ed.]

    Looking forward to seeing you there!

  37. Jason Harris 14 March, 2011 at 3:05 pm

    Let me clarify. If a link is not directly related to the discussion at hand, if it is given in place of a substantive comment (rather than supplemental to it), or if it is merely using InFocus as a platform for your own agenda, it will be removed.

  38. Aussie Bible-Believer 14 March, 2011 at 5:27 pm

    Why are you ashamed to go out to Sydney Jason?

    To busy correcting the Bible I see.

    Why don’t you go back to the USA and keep your Bible correcting antics over there!

  39. Jason Harris 14 March, 2011 at 6:08 pm

    Right. You may consider this your warning. This is my playground. If you want to make a useful contribution to the discussion, you’re more than welcome. You’ll note above that disagreement is perfectly acceptable. But the personal attacks and straw men just aren’t how we roll. So it’s your choice.

  40. Al 14 March, 2011 at 6:48 pm

    @Stan: O Stan, Stan, wherefore art thou Stan? I was looking forward to continuing our discussion :)

    @Aussie Bible-Believer, you’re always a laugh. Are you going with your brother and dad? I might pop by if work permits :) BTW, Stan and I are involved in a little discussion. Feel free to pop in and help defend the “KJB”!

  41. PJ 14 March, 2011 at 8:15 pm

    The way this discussion has degenerated is disappointing.

  42. Stan 15 March, 2011 at 8:58 am

    @Al How about answering my questions first?

    1. Prove to me that Dr Ruckman or any other true Bible believer has ever stated the KJB corrects the ORIGINAL Greek?

    2. Have you ever seen or read the ORIGINAL autographs? Please no ‘spin doctoring’ like the politicians, just give us a Yes or No answer?

    3. Why didn’t you quote verse 19 of Rev 22:19?

    4. If “all Biblical texts are corrupt” how can anyone obey God’s command to “preach the WORD”? He didn’t say the FUNDAMENTALS, THE MESSAGE, THE GENERAL IDEA, THE THOUGHTS or for that matter “the Greek says….!

    Now I will tell you what is laughable but at the same time so tragic. You claim you take your Final Authority from someone (Human being)who uses a “scientific process” This is HUMANISM, there is no other word for it. No wonder Australia is in the state it’s in when professing Christians are just as humanistic as Julia Gillard-God help us. You do know God’s word warns against placing one’s trust in science (falsely so called). Oh, how silly of me the modern perversions have omitted the word SCIENCE from 1 Tim 6:20!

    [Thank you for calling me a “crackpot”-I thought only the wicked, nutty KJBO folk use derogatory personal attacks. First “troll” (Jason Harris) and now “crackpot”.]

  43. Stan 15 March, 2011 at 9:26 am

    @Al Actually I was not referring to Eusebius but to the English speaking Englishman John Wycliffe.

    Having said that I do not defer my judgment to any fallible man or men, no matter what scientific methods they may or may not have used.

    My Final Authority is the God inspired King James Bible which states in Luke 23:38: “And a superscription also was written over him in letters of GREEK, and LATIN, and HEBREW….” Of course these words are omitted from the modern perversions including the ‘beloved’ ESV.

    So what can we learn from God’s word? The book of Romans was more than likely, ORIGINALLY written in LATIN. After all it was addressed primarily to Gentile Romans-duh!

    The books of 1&2 Corinthians and 1&2 Thessalonians was, with out a doubt, ORIGINALLY written in GREEK.

    The books of James and Hebrews is addressed to JEWS, so I guess it follows they were ORIGINALLY written in HEBREW.

    Can I prove it, of course I can’t, because I have never seen the originals.
    And since neither have you, how can you say you can tell ‘easily’ from the syntax the speakers were Aramaic, in the ORIGINALS or were you referring to the extant mss, if you were, then it does not disprove the possibility these same Aramaic speakers translated Romans from the original Latin tongue to Greek and Hebrew/James from the original Hebrew tongue to Greek.

    Maybe Paul wrote Romans concurrently in Latin, Greek and Hebrew after all he thanked God he could speak with more tongues than all the Corinthians put together (1 Cor 14:18).

    So much for your Greek onlyISM!

    Let me ask you who talked you out of believing the KJB?

  44. Al 15 March, 2011 at 9:27 am

    @Stan, I’m excited to see you. I truly am!

    As for your questions/statements:

    I don’t believe I said the original manuscripts. I said the Greek Manuscripts.

    I haven’t seen the manuscripts, just like you haven’t.

    I didn’t quote the verse because my point was about adding words, not removing them; that’s your claim not mine, it was my attempt at poking fun at your (meaning KJO people) tirade at removing words.

    As I said, that’s not my problem. I’m just showing you the facts. It’s up to you to resolve the issues. Just so you know, proving any position I hold wrong doesn’t automatically declare you the victor. We both can be wrong after all.

    Science means knowledge in Greek, you know, the language you detest?

    I was referring to Ruckman, but feel free to attribute it to yourself if you please.

    Now, can you please address the issues I brought up, pretty please?

  45. Al 15 March, 2011 at 9:37 am

    I was of course referring to the collection of manuscripts.

    It’s an interesting theory, It’s possible that it happened as you said. I doubt it though, only because Koine Greek was the lingua franca of the day. The church consisted of both Jews and Gentiles so it would have been more diplomatic of Paul to stick to Greek. Also, Jews at Christ’s time spoke Aramaic in day to day life, so those books, if they were written in another language, was written in Aramaic.

    Thanks for continuing the discussion, I am thoroughly enjoying it.

  46. Stan 15 March, 2011 at 9:54 am

    @Jason Harris

    Wow, most folk keep cash and credit cards in their wallets but you keep a list of sixteen verses (actually 15 you repeated one verse 1 John 5:12-printing/copying error I guess)to prove the KJB is full of errors. I thought us “fundamentalist KJBO crackpots” were a minority, but clearly you are coming across this endangered species on a regular basis.

    I obeyed 2 Tim 2:15 and studied (you do know that the modern perversions including the NKJV & the ‘beloved’ ESV have removed the word to ‘STUDY’, well you do now don’t you?)each one of those verses. Only some one who has a closed mind and an ingrained hatred for the KJB would refuse to come to the conclusion that these are ALL printing errors.

    I don’t have the time or inclination to tackle each verse you quoted, I believe Numbers 6:14 will suffice.

    It’s obvious to anyone that can read that the printer got carried away with the word ‘LAMBE’ and printed ‘LAMBE’ a third time instead of ‘RAM’. Lambe-Ram read and sound similar. In verse 17 he finally got it right “and he shall offer the RAMME for a sacrifice of peace offerings…
    He even messed up with the spelling of offering, spelling it ‘OFFRING’the first time. We can’t be too hard on the poor bloke, he was probably being distracted by someone whispering in his ear “The Greek Septuagint says….”.

    I think you would be better off filling your wallet with gospel tracts-KJB of course.

  47. Stan 15 March, 2011 at 10:35 am

    @Jason Harris said:

    “Where is this idea of a “universal language of the end times” found in Scripture?

    OK, where is the idea found in the Scriptures that a born again, blood washed Christian MUST go to the ‘original’ Hebrew and Greek in order to understand the word of God?

    That would imply an individual having to learn Hebrew or Greek, obviously practically ridiculous. So where does this poor soul (SOS) go? He/she MUST seek out the ‘Bible Scholar’ who has indeed ‘studied’ these dead languages in order to understand the Bible. Voila, we have a ‘Protestant pope’ who becomes the mediator between God’s word and the believer-result a MAN and not God’s word the KJB becomes the Final Authority. If you cannot see this is Roman Catholic humanism then a visit to a medical doctor would be advisable.

    I’ll give you Scripture: “Go ye into all the WORLD and preach the gospel”

    The English language is the WORLD language of commerce, politics, science etc. English is taught WORLD wide, Hebrew and Greek isn’t! I don’t have a problem with God elevating England above all other nations (until the time of the gentiles ends) in order to get the gospel out. Do you really believe it is simply coincidental that England is the one nation from which true Time is measured (GMT,zero hour) and from which the world measures true Position, zero longitude?

    If it wasn’t for England you wouldn’t even know what the correct time or your correct geographical location was!

    It really is sad that you Colonials are so ashamed of your English heritage and language, and instead you run to DEAD languages that God forsook hundreds of years ago, in order to attack and correct his word in the KJB.

    Let me ask you, who do you think is going to lose more rewards at the Judgement seat of Christ, the Christian who believes God’s promises and believes that the King James Bible is the inspired, inerrant and infallible word of God-THE FINAL AUTHORITY IN ALL MATTERS OF FAITH & PRACTICE or folk like you who have no word of God but multiple versions and who are their OWN Final Authority?

  48. Stan 15 March, 2011 at 10:36 am

    @Jason Harris,

    Oh, I didn’t realise you were a Yank until just now.

    If it wasn’t for England your nation wouldn’t even exist.

    As a side note how come your rebellious forefathers didn’t obey Romans 13? Your nation rebelled against their Sovereign, King George III-shame on you-I guess that’s why you are so rebellious against the KING JAMES Bible, it runs in the blood!

  49. Stan 15 March, 2011 at 10:44 am

    @Al,

    I believe I have.

    Who talked you out of believing the King James Bible and convinced you to run to dead languages?

    It certainly wasn’t God!

  50. Al 15 March, 2011 at 11:21 am

    I will respond to your comments when I get home, as for my stance on the “KJB”, I was never KJO. I went to a KJO church and I was at the beginning “KJP” (King James Preferred) but moved to MVP (Modern Versions Preferred) after some study.

    I didn’t have anyone convince me of my position, it was self-study, in fact I’d say my position is far more “liberal” than my friends :)

  51. Jason Harris 15 March, 2011 at 1:51 pm

    Ok. Stan, your sarcasm and sense of superiority is simply not acceptable. You’ve demonstrated significant insensitivity to the other humans with which you are conversing. I would expect more decency from an Atheist.

    This is your warning.

    I’m closing the thread. This type of behaviour in future discussions will result in an immediate ban and deletion of comments.

  52. My series links » InFocus 31 March, 2012 at 11:31 pm

    […] KJV 400th anniversary | Part 1 | Part 2 | Part 3 | Part 4 […]

Comments are closed.

Share This Article!