But we cannot prove the virgin birth. Does that make sense. I believe that, when we believe we can do what only God can do, we are deceiving ourselves. You are too honest with yourself and too near to God to not at least think on these things. My friend was concerned that he no longer could trust the Bible, for he had believed that God's word had been preserved only in the King James Version.
If the KJV were truly based on manuscripts that were not completely faithful to the autographs, then how could he identify the truly scriptural parts? My answer once again dealt with the differences between head knowledge and faith. Is any part of any Bible version the preserved word of God?
You can't prove that any passage in any text is the preserved word of God, not a single one. Because, again, it is a matter of faith. Not one of the inspired writers of Scripture is alive to answer questions concerning his inspiration. And even if they were, who can testify that they were guided by the Holy Spirit? All we have is their word and the testimony of the Scriptures themselves, but if the Scriptures aren't God-breathed, then their testimony is not valid. We don't know that the prophecies ascribed to Elijah, Isaiah, Jeremiah, etc. Why do we believe the Scriptures are God-breathed?
Not by reading about it in the KJV. How do they know? Not a single autograph exists against which they might compare the Textus Receptus in order to authenticate it as a perfect word for word copy of the books of the New Testament canon. They have no verifiable basis for their belief that the KJV perfectly preserves the word of God. As I explained in my article, that cannot be, for it can be shown that Erasmus inserted some of his own words into the Greek New Text that evolved into the Textus Receptus, assuming that all the differences between his first GNT sent to the printer and the manuscripts he copied from are authentic.
And I did not even address the Masoretic Text, from which the Old Testament was translated, which is a 15th century manuscript. While there was an ideal of an unchanging text, identical in all copies, this ideal was not achieved in practice as far back as manuscripts and other evidence enable us to see. All forms of the Tanakh used today are forms of what is known as the Masoretic Text, abbreviated "MT," named after the medieval scholars the Masoretes who labored for several centuries to produce the most accurate text they could.
The MT in use today is based on Masoretic manuscripts of the ninth and tenth centuries C. It has been largely unchanged since late Second Temple times ca. But although the text has been largely unchanged, there is a large number of variant readings, most of which do not materially change the meaning of the text, but drastically affect the number of letters it contains.
Furthermore, the text of the 3rd century B. In the centuries between the composition of the Biblical books and the early Masoretic text of the third century, many changes had befallen the text. The above is taken from a site that deals with Bible codes, but the critical data appear sound.
- Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus:.
- The Stand-in Bridegroom.
- 69 Comments!
- Transformational Leadership.
- Dilemmas, Dilemmas: Practical Case Studies for Company Directors (Directors Dilemmas Book 1).
- 7 things you may not know about the King James Bible?
I believe that God's word is preserved in the hearts of the Body of Christ. We see it in our Bibles, whether based on the Majority Text, the Textus Receptus or the Minority Text, so long as the translators were faithful to the texts they worked from. When we read in the Scriptures, we are reading God's word passed down through the ages, filtered through many hands. Is that not why the Holy Spirit indwells us? To illuminate our studies and help us to know the truth?
Once again, I believe that it is a matter of faith, not being able to win a Bible trivia game. A favored passage, taken out of context, is Psalm Thou, O Lord, wilt keep them; Thou wilt preserve him from this generation forever. They say these verses, taken out of context, prove that God intends to preserve His word for all time in the Bible; the English Bible. As I demonstrated in my earlier article, this has not happened; certainly not in the KJV.
- Prelude a minor BWV 569 - Organ!
- The Facts say NO!.
- Prince Igor;
When the above passage is considered in context, its true intent becomes clear. Look to verse 5: In this Psalm, David contrast the treachery of man with the constancy of God. The Psalm opens with David's cry to the Lord for help. The numbers of godly men are diminishing due to a falling away from righteousness. David is concerned that, unless the Lord intervenes, soon there will be none left but carnal, unregenerate, ungodly, and unfaithful men. In verse 5, Almighty God responds to David's plea, promising to have mercy on the poor and needy, and to avenge them on their oppressors, and free them from them.
And this the Lord promises to do "now", not in some vague future time. And God's words are truth, more precious that silver or gold and God. He has kept every word of promise He ever made, even as He has kept and preserved the sacred writings. The doctrines of the Gospel will continue through the generations, but the sense of this verse relates to the promises in verse 5.
God will preserve every one of the poor and needy from the wicked generation of men in which they live. He will keep them from being corrupted or intimidated by those who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Still, my friend was concerned that, because he had been shown that his beloved KJV was not translated from manuscripts that were perfectly in accord with the inspired autographs. He still was concerned that he could not "prove" the virgin birth, particularly to someone who was using a Bible version based on the Minority Text. I did not attempt to meet that emotional concern with theology or history of Bible texts.
I simply drew on my own experiences and personal opinion. Honestly, the only people who make an issue of versions seem to be the KJV-Only people.
I. What Preservations Means
I imagine the rest of us do a bit of textual criticism - as much as we are able, being restricted to comparing English translations. That is part of our study. I think it interesting that so many who hold the King James Version in such high esteem seem to be unaware that the modern KJV edition they are likely to be using is not the edition.
Most likely, it is the Blayney edition of Very few of those who hold to the KJV-Only school of thought that I have encountered were aware that the original edition was changed in , , , and The later editions primarily were concerned with correcting typographical errors and with modernizing the language. Were such changes really necessary? Judge for yourself by reading this passage from the edition: Besides, that noble Iudas exhorted the people to keep themselues from sinne.
Forsomuch as they saw before their eyes the things that came to passe, for the sinne of those y were slaine. And also in that he perceiued that there was great fauour layed vp for those that died godly. It was an holy, and good thought wherupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be deliuered from sinne" II Maccabees Someone once told me, when challenged concerning the difficulty many people, particularly younger believers, have with the archaic language of the KJV, that some agency had evaluated the KJV for reading difficulty.
According to this person, it was determined that the KJV wording was judged to be the sixth grade level. I would compare this passage from the KJV with the similar passage from the Blayney edition, except that the later edition does not include the Apocrypha. If the edition of the KJV, which included the Apocrypha, is considered by some to perfectly preserve God's word, then how could the edition, which does not include the Apocrypha, also be considered to perfectly preserve God's word?
The words of Edwin H. Palmer are not too strong: Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible. For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable' " D. My friend seemed to be only half-joking when he called up an image from the days when he was a member of the Roman Catholic Church: I guess we need a Magisterium to teach us what is the truth.
We have something far better than the Magisterium. We have saving faith and the indwelling Holy Spirit. We do not need the crutch of faith in a version that does not live up to its billing. After digesting what we had discussed, my friend cut to the heart of the difficulties he was dealing with by asking: Because we are friends and have many things in common, we have read one another's work and have cooperated on a number of projects. He had seen me defend my faith dozens of times. I did not believe his question truly was directed so much to me as to himself.
Now that his beloved KJV had been shown to be imperfect, what would he now use to support his beliefs when engaged with others who did not share his beliefs? In my brief response, I addressed a concern he had raised previously: You have seen me support my beliefs hundreds of times. There are lots of difficult passages for new converts.
Especially for those who have restricted access to other help. Thanks for this comment, Bluey. It describes very well the difficulties that many English speakers and readers have with the King James Bible. It was written to be understood in the s by common folk, but language has changed a lot since then. I definitely appreciate this article. I do have one concern, though. I agree that the NIV is a perfectly good Bible.
In fact, my day-to-day reader is the NIV. In order to have a deep understanding of scripture, you need to have a decent knowledge of the Greek. The Bible mentions demons, and I know godly people who have written about demons. Have you got an exact title and publication details of the book you are referring to? Even a quick look at the book shows that King James was writing against demons, magic, witchcraft and astrology, etc.
Enjoyed reading it as far as I could. It takes some getting use to it. He really had great insight. Well, Kings do or should! I enjoy the kjv and use it often. For everyday I use the nkjv, I love the formal beauty of both. On my phone is where I use the other translations. I thought this was a well thought out and articulated column. I did take note of a lot of passion on both sides. I have also noticed that recently the NIV has begun to soften some of its language around controversial social subjects, for example the way women are referred to in scripture.
I believe that either will serve a sincere individual very well. Thanks for your comment, Richard. Yes, the passion is astonishing. I really like the NASB too. Have you got an example of where the NIV has softened or compromised a verse about women? Same comment as Marg: I like the way women are referred to in scripture…like strong, aggressive people who would die for the gospel…and people who are in direct contact with God rather than the church ideal that infers that God has to go through human mediators to get to women.
But the KJV also has the same way of referring to women…so what do you mean? While this is acceptable to many as the NIV attempts to communicate the intent of the message, this is not a true word for word translation, and I prefer to leave the thinking to individuals, not solely to experts. He was addressing his mother in a respectful and warm manner. When translating from one language to another, we need to faithfully translate the actual meaning. A word for word translation can be misleading. I know some people who mistakenly think Jesus was being terse with his mother. This is a shame.
The TR as we know it was produced by Erasmus in ? It was the Greek text he produced to support his Latin translation of the Bible. It became known as the TR much later. I responded with this long quotation of three paragraphs taken from here , which I thought might be helpful in the ongoing discussion here. This name was first applied to a printed Greek text only as late as , or almost years after the first published Greek New Testament appeared in Most notable among the many editors of Greek New Testaments in this period were Erasmus 5 editions: Robertus Stephanus 4 editions: These many Greek texts display a rather close general uniformity, a uniformity based on the fact that all these texts are more or less reprints of the text s edited by Erasmus, with only minor variations.
These texts were not independently compiled by the many different editors on the basis of close personal examination of numerous Greek manuscripts, but are genealogically-related.
When Erasmus was compiling his text, he had access to only one manuscript of Revelation, and it lacked the last six verses, so he took the Latin Vulgate and back-translated from Latin to Greek. The fact that all textus receptus editions of Stephanus, Beza, et al. No edition of the Greek New Testament agreeing precisely with the text followed by the KJV translators was in existence until when F. Scrivener produced such an edition though even it differs from the King James Version in a very few places, e. This text does not conform exactly to any of the historic texts dating from the Reformation period and known collectively as the textus receptus.
Though the terms textus receptus and majority text are frequently used as though they were synonymous, they by no means mean the same thing. When the majority text was being compiled by Hodges and Farstad, their collaborator Pickering estimated that their resultant text would differ from the textus receptus in over 1, places; in fact, the differences amounted to 1, The majority of manuscripts and Westcott and Hort agree against the textus receptus in excluding Luke Except in a few rare cases, writers well-versed in textual criticism have abandoned the textus receptus as a standard text.
Yes, both the and the ,much easier read Edition. King James did not error, he falsified, as its very obvious, calculated change. I still love KJV, but appreciate the Bible our forefathers brought over on the mayflower too! They did not bring the newer KJV on their voyage. Maybe they just loved their at that time 60 year old bibles, better. Or they knew better! The english in this version, is also difficult to understand. For those in the 21st century. Christians are still beating this old drum? That issue was argued in the Massachusetts Bay Colony in the s by both pastors and lawyers!
Marg, you motivate me to be more patient. How long can you keep moderating this discussion and maintain your patience? As long as it takes…. He explicates the great accomplishments of the KJV, does not bash those who think it is the best translation for all English readers, and explicates reasons why any modern English translation of the Bible should be better for us. McGrath is a polymath.
He helped me appreciate the greatness of the KJV. Barr gives us insight into both translation theory and Interpretation difficulties.
7 things you may not know about the King James Bible | Marg Mowczko
I am amazed at how far the zeal of some commenters on these pages so far surpasses their knowledge. Many have no understanding of the difficulties involved in translating from any language to another language—let alone from Biblical Hebrew or from Koine. I agree with the writer who said Christians need to be more involved in demonstrating the love of Christ to our lost world than debating our favorite translations of the Bible.
This whole discussion reminds me of how some Christians like to study the book of Revelation—just so they can argue with other Christians about how best to interpret the end times. Or is everyone close-minded regarding KJV Only? I just wanted to salute your incredible Christlike patience.
I have no desire to cause more division in the church over what is sadly a contentious issue for some. It is a concern to me that this is the only page on my website that contains cautions about what people may post in the comments section. Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email. Images Page decorations are copied from the King James Bible as is the image of the frontispiece below.
Next A shepherd who only feeds the male sheep in his flock? Marg Marg Mowczko lives north of Sydney, Australia, in a house filled with three generations of family. Don Johnson on December 18, at 1: Marg on December 18, at 2: Marg on December 19, at 9: Marg on January 3, at 3: Pastor Dustin, You make some excellent points. Dawson Williams on February 27, at 7: Marg on February 27, at Dawson Williams on February 27, at Marg on February 27, at 2: Monte Botts on June 6, at 3: Marg on June 6, at 9: Pastordt on June 7, at 1: Marg on June 7, at 5: You sure seem to know a lot about the King James Version.
Tom Howard on July 2, at Marg on July 3, at Marg on June 6, at Sorry for the delay in replying. Marg on July 2, at 5: Tom Howard on July 3, at 2: DaveH on July 4, at 9: Marg on July 4, at Hi Dave, My main point is that much of the language of the KJV, even that of the more recent editions, is dated, and that some of the words in the KJV no longer convey an accurate meaning, simply because the meanings of some words have changed over time.
DaveH on July 4, at Marg on July 5, at 1: Peggy Cassidy on August 8, at 8: Marg on August 8, at 9: I use various translations. Which quotation do you prefer, in the end: Marg on October 9, at 1: Bill on October 18, at 5: Bill on October 20, at 8: Tom Howard on October 20, at Tom Howard on October 21, at Bill on October 21, at 1: Tom Howard on October 21, at 5: Bill on October 21, at 7: Tom Howard on October 22, at Marg on November 17, at 1: Marg on November 21, at Several early church writers make references to apocryphal books and even commend some of them.
Marg on November 21, at 3: Tom Howard on January 8, at How about these prices? Bill on December 17, at Are we being diverted from the real battle by these skirmishes? Marg on January 11, at 8: The author of The Message never intended his work to be treated as a Bible translation.
Bluey on July 11, at 5: Marg on July 12, at 1: Brian F on January 28, at 7: Besides that single, tiny, complaint, this article is definitely spot on. Marg on February 17, at 8: Source for Daemonologie by King James http: Marg on February 17, at Thank you so much, Judy. This is very helpful. Tom Howard on February 22, at Beth on March 29, at 5: Staci on April 1, at 3: Marg on April 1, at It sure helps to have an English translation with language that is easy to understand.
The Lord highly esteems His word, elevating its importance even above that of His name. First, consider the following verse:. God's name is glorious and fearful. The penalty for not fearing God's name makes it obvious that He does not take disrespect for His name lightly. God warned against adding to His word:. Add thou not unto his words , lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar. Note that He also warned would-be correctors that they were not to subtract from His word. God gave us the words that He wanted us to have, and we dare not alter them. If we are to keep His commandments, we certainly need to know precisely what they are.
Hence, the Lord provided ample warnings to us, so that we might not be tempted to change His words. Lest anyone be confused about the utter foolishness of tampering with the holy word of God, the Lord provided a fearsome final reminder in the last verses of His inspired word:. 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, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book.
How can anyone read the preceding without recognizing the immense importance the LORD has placed on His word?
Questions for "KJV only" advocates:
God promised to severely punish anyone who adds to His word. Worse, He promised to expunge those who would take away from His words, from the book of life! In this light, should we not highly value the Holy word of the living God? God in His omniscience knew that His word would be attacked. Since the day Satan was cast from Heaven, he has been working furiously to sabotage the word of God.
And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said , Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden? The serpent's technique was not to engage in a full-fledged frontal attack of outright denial, but rather to undermine the absolute authority of God's word. This is precisely what modernists and atheists are doing when they spiritualize Scripture. How do you know? These attacks on God's revelation most certainly did not end in the Garden of Eden. They have continued unabated.
In the New Testament, we see another example of Satan's tactics; that of changing God's word.
Immediately following Jesus' forty-day fast, Satan engaged him in a dialogue. The Lord Jesus Christ said:. In the next two verses Satan quoted Scripture to Jesus, boldly altering His words by omitting a key phrase. In this example Satan omitted the phrase, "to keep thee in all thy ways," demonstrating that the devil is so audacious that he dares to subtract from God's word when face to face with their author!
This, right after being informed that man lives by "every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. If Satan is so bold as to lie to God incarnate, how much more when faced with the likes of fallible men? Another of Satan's strategies has been to obscure God's words by hiding them in a morass of manuscripts and Bible versions. He has used this approach for thousands of years, but during the last century, it has become far more prevalent.
As has been stated previously, the Devil attacks the Lord's words by using one of his most potent weapons - doubt. He didn't start off by brazenly denying God's words, but rather by attempting to undermine Eve's confidence in them. Only when doubt had set in did he deny God's words to Adam and Eve. His methods are much the same today. Satan knows that God promised to preserve his word, so he tries to obfuscate it by surrounding it with a dizzying number of varying translations. This can lead to nothing but confusion, and we know that God is not the author of confusion.
- Self Esteem in Children: The Key to Your Childs Future!
- How I Know That The King James Bible Is The Word Of God by James Melton.
- Is The King James Version Perfect? | Web Truth?
- Patricia’s Place.
- The Kitty Buddha;
- Bible Matters About the King James Version A Conversation.
- II. How much does God value His Word?;
They will vainly tout the great scholars found on their translating committees. But how are we to know who to trust? To whom do we turn when we need to know which Bible to rely on? Which one is truly preserved? Perhaps it would be wise to examine what the Lord has to say on the matter. The Bible has much to say on the extent and mode of it's own preservation.
The following brief outline provides a clear overview of three important aspects of preservation. Just as the doctrine of inspiration is considered to be foundational to our understanding of the Bible, so should be the doctrine of preservation. They are inextricably linked. An inspired Bible that was not preserved would be little more than a tainted book of history and moral lessons. Indeed, this is exactly what the Bible represents in the minds of the men in our day. The Bible's authority is only as great as our confidence in its reliability. It would be difficult to entrust our salvation in Jesus Christ to the very same God who could not keep His word.
In fact, if God's word has not been perfectly preserved as He has told us, how can we be certain about the security of our salvation? Thankfully, we don't need to concern ourselves with such things, because just as God promised us that no one could "pluck" His believers out of His hand, He promised that He would keep His words pure forever. This aspect of God's preservation of Scripture is just as crucial as the first. So that we could not mistake His intentions, the Lord spelled out to what degree He would keep the Scriptures pure.
He promised us that He would preserve even the very words. We don't have to wonder whether God merely preserved his thoughts, or his ideas. We know that the very means by which we communicate to each other - words - are crucially important to God. As we read earlier, we live by " every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. Our Savior tells us that we require not only physical food, but spiritual food as well.
Does it seem reasonable that God would feed our souls with anything less than the best? If every word is important, does it not make sense that God would preserve all of His words so that we might nourished and strengthened?