Featured The King James Version Only Position

If it is that easy to determine the meaning of archaic words in the KJV from the context and a little study, why do even well-studied KJV-only authors give conflicting definitions for some of those words?

D. A. Waite’s Defined KJB has one definition for target at 1 Samuel 17:6 [“a small shield” (p. 423)] while David Cloud’s Way of Life Encyclopedia gave a different definition [“small spear; javelin” (p. 432)].

White’s Dictionary of the King James Language defined bravery at Isaiah 3:18 as “the condition of possessing the qualities of bold courage” (p. 185). On the other hand, David Cloud’s Concise KJB Dictionary has a different definition: “beauty” (p. 14).

KJV-only author David Cloud defined “coney” as “a rabbit” (Way of Life Encyclopedia, p. 90; Concise KJB Dictionary, p. 20). The 2003 New Pilgrim Bible with consulting editors Jerry Rockwell and Douglas Stauffer has this note for Leviticus 11:5: “coney--a rabbit” (p. 169). Gail Riplinger indicated that the coney is a “bunny” (Language of the KJB, p. 23), and she found that “built-in“ definition by changing the pronunciation. On the other hand, Waite’s Defined KJB gave this definition: “small, rabbit-like nocturnal animal that lives in rock holes; perhaps hyraxes” (p. 899). The Trinitarian Bible Society’s Bible Word List and “a Bible Word List” in the back of the Cambridge Standard Text Edition of the KJV explained or defined “coney” as a “hyrax, rock-badger.” This same Bible Word list that was recommended by David Cloud “to help people understand the KJV” conflicts with Cloud’s definition (Faith, p. 602). Steven White defined “coney” as “an adult rabbit, or rabbit-like animal” (White’s Dictionary, I, p. 261).

The fact that D. A. Waite evidently saw a need for a KJV edition that gives definitions for many, many words in the KJV and the fact that several KJV-only advocates have books or booklets that define archaic words in the KJV would suggest that the point was valid.

 

In The Beginning :Alister McGrath

[My internet connection is woefully s-l-o-w.]

"The decision to include it [the Apocrypha] was taken by Richard Bancroft --yet another example of his influence over the KINg James Bible. The task of translating the apocryphal books was entrusted to the Second Cambridge Company, who are generally thought to have discharged their duties well. The decision to include the Apocrypha was not particularly controversial at the time; the Geneva Bible had also included it." (p.226)

In 1646 the Westminster Confession of Faith had this to say in the third article:

"The books commonly called Apocrypha, not being of divine inspiration, are no part of the Canon of Scripture; and therefore are of no authority in the Church of God, nor to be any otherwise approved, or made use of, than other human writings."

 

Do the modern translations even give the same translations of those words?

The NIV translates "hyrax" instead coney. That's a real common easy to understand word... not.

the NASB uses the word "shaphan".. whatever that is.

the NIT uses "rock badger"

Young's Literal uses rabbit.

You act as if differing definitions of words is only a problem in understanding the King James Bible.

there are a lot of words that people do not agree on the definition or of the translation even.

Obviously there is a problem when it comes to understanding animals, especially when some of them may not be familiar to modern day readers.

I think it's obvious looking at how different bibles have translated the word for coney, that there are issues when it comes to identifying animals in the ancient languages.

You act as though determining word defintions is only a King James Bible problem.

Go over and look at the Calvinist/Arminian debates and tell me they don't have the same problems.

 

my point is that there are going to be understanding and interpretation issues in all translations.

So to cry out that the King James bible has problems with understanding words and has uncommon words is not valid, because this is going to be a problem with other translations as well, and with pretty much any book a person may pick up.

 

Yes, but the KJV has far, far, more compared to modern translations.

Yes, but it's the sheer number of them. I would like you to list two or three more examples of uncommon words found in the NIV, please. BTW, hyrax is a better translation than either rabbit or coney.

Along with uncommon, archaic words there are flat out translation errors in the KJV.

"I thought to advertise thee" (Ruth 4.4) means "I thought to inform you"


Spider or lizard in Proverbs 30:28? (also notice the clumsy phrasing of the verse)

28 The spider taketh hold with her hands, and is in kings' palaces.
28 a lizard can be caught with the hand, yet it is found in kings’ palaces. [NIV]

The NKJV says 'spider' with a footnote saying 'or lizard'. (I don't see how it can be both.)
The NASB says 'lizard'.
The ESV says 'lizard'.


Deut. 8:9--KJV says you can mine brass (brass is not an element, it is an alloy made of copper and zinc.)
9 A land wherein thou shalt eat bread without scarceness, thou shalt not lack any thing in it; a land whose stones are iron, and out of whose hills thou mayest dig brass.

Psalm 104:4
4 “Who maketh his angels spirits; his ministers a flaming fire” [KJV]
Actual translation: He makes the winds his messengers.

What is this verse saying?:
Ezekiel 41:7 And there was an enlarging, and a winding about still upward to the side chambers: for the winding about of the house went still upward round about the house: therefore the breadth of the house was still upward, and so increased from the lowest chamber to the highest by the midst. [KJV]

Daniel 7:9 Thrones “cast down” or thrones “set up”?
I beheld until the thrones were cast down.. [KJV]
As I looked, thrones were set in place… [NIV]
I beheld until the thrones were set up.. [Geneva]


Daniel 9:7 What is “confusion of faces”?
O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, but unto us confusion of faces [KJV]
Lord, you are righteous, but this day we are covered with shame [NIV]
O Lord, righteousness belongeth unto thee, and unto us open shame [Geneva]

Judges 3:24-25 What is "covereth his feet?"
When he was gone out, his servants came; and when they saw that, behold, the doors of the parlour were locked, they said, Surely he covereth his feet in his summer chamber.
[KJV]

These examples are just off the top of my head, I could go on and on.

The bottom line is that Christians, especially new Christians that are trying to get into God's Word should not need to carry around a 1769 Webster's dictionary or a "KJV to English" booklet in order to read the Bible.

Decades ago I grew up in a KJV-only church and attended one for a couple of years recently. The most recent experience brought back to light the errors of KJVO and caused me to look into it again. I pray that you find clarity on this issue.

 

For each place you argue as a translation error, I'm sure I could find scholars on the other side of the argument you make, I simply do not have time to argue with you about them.

 

I suppose if you looked hard enough you could find some KJVO scholar that would support the KJV's translation.

Brass is brass, an alloy of copper and zinc. It cannot be mined. There is no unambiguity here.

Spider vs. lizard...which creature is more apt to be caught in the hand?

Thrones "cast down" vs. thrones "set up". Even the Geneva translation which predates the KJV agrees with the modern translations. Same situation with "confusion of faces" vs. "open shame". (BTW, when I read confusion of faces I render that as bewilderment.)

You did not provide me with any other uncommon words found in the NIV. I really would be interested in seeing some more.

I would also like to get your reading on the phrase "covereth his feet". What does that mean?

 

it says the spider takes hold with her hands...makes perfect sense when you think about it being in the corner clinging to the wall.... it does not say is caught in hand.

a lot of people think covereth feet refers to..well using the bathroom, dropping your clothes and covering you feet. I believe this is the same phrase used when David finds Saul alone in the cave and cuts off part of his garment.

Of course I don't doubt that the NIV may use simple langauge, but I believe it is often at the cost of accuracy and force, which I do not think is right.

Also the bigger issue is the text behind the translations and the verses that are missing, words that are missing, and changed, etc.

For example, I strongly believe 1st John 5:7 is scripture, many do not, and let's not argue this.

The NIV in Luke 2:33 calls Joseph the father of Jesus, which is not true.

This is one of the results of the change in Greek texts behind the translations... Which for me is the biggest reason why I am King James Only, Well I lean more towards King James Preferred, I believe the King James Bible is the closest and most faithful to the Originals, and I can see God's providential hand in giving it to us, With the new versions I do not trust the scholars who A. Are putting out the Critical Hebrew and Greek texts. B. the ability of scholars today to translate faithfully and accurately, especially compared to the scholarship of the KJV translators, (One of them read the Hebrew O.T. at the age of 5). and C. The Spiritual climate of today to be a season conducive to faithfully being able to revise our KJV.

 

There were the same exact results in several of the pre-1611 English Bibles translated from Textus Receptus editions.

Several of the early Bibles of which the KJV was a revision have "his father" at Luke 2:33 including Wycliffe's, Tyndale's, Coverdale's, Matthew's, Great, Whittingham's, and Bishops'. The 1543 Spanish Enzinas New Testament has "padre" [father] at Luke 2:33. Luther's German Bible has "Vater" [father] at Luke 2:33. An edition of Erasmus’ Latin New Testament has “pater” [father] at Luke 2:33. Thus, Erasmus's Greek edition of the TR apparently had "father" at Luke 2:33, and likely some of the TR editions by Stephanus also had Greek words for "his father". The Anglo-Saxon (995 A.D.) has "his father" at Luke 2:33 (Bosworth, Gospels, p. 280). The West Saxon Gospels also have “his father” [“faeder”] at Luke 2:33. The Anglo-Saxon rendering above the Latin at Luke 2:33 in the Lindisfarne Gospels is “father” [“fader”].

What would a consistent application of your reasoning about Luke 2:33 say concerning the KJV when it referred to Jesus as "the son of Joseph" at John 1:45 and John 6:42 or “Joseph‘s son“ at Luke 4:22 and to Joseph as “thy father“ at Luke 2:48?

It was the 1560 Geneva Bible which first had the rendering "Joseph" at Luke 2:33.

There were textual differences in the twenty to thirty varying Textus Receptus editions, some involving whole verses.

 

It's language is not as simple as you think. There are many other Bible translations which employ easier English. Do you disagree with Tyndale who said that he wanted the plowboy to understand the Scripture as well as the highly educated?

Well, it is your right to harbor a false understanding.

Yes, the KJ Version added a lot and that is problematic.

"for there are three that testify:" That's 1 John 5:7.

Okay.

You are being silly. Joseph acted in the capacity as the father of Jesus. Do you think the boy Jesus went around correcting everyone who said that Joseph was his dad? Of course not. Mary was his intended mother and Joseph was placed in authority as his father. Just look at 1:29-38. The text reveals how the birth of Jeus was to be a supernatural one.

I think it's generally acknowledged that biblical scholarship has seen many advances over those of four centuries ago.

Note that the bulk of English Bible translations are not revising the KJV.

 

How does 400 more years of being removed from a dead language produce better scholarship? I would think the understanding would tend to deteriorate rather than get better.

Also I do believe one of the King James Translators learned somewhere around 20ish Middle Eastern Languages.

Not to mention that the King James Translators learned the ancient languages at way younger ages than most scholars today, many scholars today don't even touch the ancient languages till college.

It's pride on the part of modern scholars to think that we are smarter than people in the past when it comes to understanding the ancient languages, People in 2115 will be much better able to understand our English of today than the people of 2615. (Assuming this world even lasts that long).

Of course, if you think we are evolving and getting better and better..:BangHead:

 

That's because the KJV mistranslates the word as spider and as spiders having hands.

So why not simply say it instead of using a euphemism?

Text behind the KJV has added words and verses.

Yeah, and in Luke 2:41-42 the KJV says Joseph is one of the parents of Jesus.

 

The text does not say anything about catching anything in hands, and I do not believe it is a a mistranslation.

1. What makes the KJV Special is the translators scholarly ability, the translation process that they used, not to mention God's providence around that time, a Jesuit plot to assassinate the King was uncovered and stopped, the Printing Press was really beginning to prosper around this time, a Great Missionary movement was beginning at this time. Many of the older English translations are actually in Old English. Wycliffe's bible was translated from the Vulgate, and the other ones had their issues.

2. Why would I read anything that comes out of Rome? and especially from Jerome?

 

3. This isn't even true, the following info will come from Will Kinney:

"Here is the story that is usually told concerning the reading of "BOOK of life" as opposed to "tree of life" - AG Green said, "Erasmus borrowed the manuscript on Revelation from his friend Johann Reuchlin, a German scholar of Greek and Hebrew. It was the only manuscript of the Book of Revelation used by Erasmus for his first edition of the Novum Testamentum. The identification of the mss. is Minuscule 2814 in the Gregory-Aland numbering. It was previously labeled as 1rK . It is dated to the 12th century. The text is written on a parchment in minuscule, in 1 column per page, 20 lines per page. The codex contains the Book of Revelation with a commentary by Andreas of Caesarea. Last six verses of Minuscule 2814 are lost (Rev. 22:16-21). Erasmus translated the missing last six verses from the Latin Vulgate back to Greek for his editions. The result of the readings from Minuscule 2814 and Erasmus’ translation became a basis for the Textus Receptus. Minuscule 2814 is presently located at the library of University of Augsburg, Germany."

First of all, Erasmus had much more to work with than just a few Greek manuscripts. He spent years traveling all over Europe scouring the libraries and taking copious notes from a multitude of manuscripts. If Erasmus used the readings he found in the last few verses of a particular Latin Vulgate, it was probably because he knew they represented what he had seen in the numerous Greek texts he had been seeing for years previously."

heres a snippet from wayoflife.org:


DIDN’T ERASMUS USE A MERE HANDFUL OF MANUSCRIPTS?

This is the standard line that is given by textual critics and parroted by those who support textual criticism. Consider the following three examples. Kenyon was an influential textual critic, and Carson and Wallace are New Evangelicals who defend textual criticism.

Frederic Kenyon -- “Erasmus used only a handful of MSS...” (The Text of the Greek Bible, p. 155).

D.A. Carson -- “Although Erasmus published a fourth and fifth edition, we need say no more about them here. Erasmus’s Greek Testament stands in line behind the King James Version; yet IT RESTS UPON A HALF DOZEN MINUSCULE MANUSCRIPTS, none of which is earlier than the tenth century. ... the textual basis of the TR is a small number of haphazardly and relatively late minuscule manuscripts” (D.A. Carson, The King James Version Debate, 1979, pp. 35-36).

Daniel Wallace -- “[Erasmus] only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way” (Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible is the Best Translation Available Today).

 

ANSWER:

1. Erasmus had knowledge of many manuscripts other than those he used for his first edition. Erasmus “began studying and collating NT MSS and observing thousands of variant readings in preparation for his own edition” (Eldon Jay Epp, “Decision Points in New Testament Textual Criticism,” Studies in The Theory and Method of New Testament Textual Criticism, edited by Epp and Gordon Fee, p. 18; quoting Bentley 1983: 35, 138). “It is well known also that Erasmus looked for manuscripts everywhere during his travels and that he borrowed them from everyone he could. Hence although the Textus Receptus was based mainly on the manuscripts which Erasmus found at Basel, it also included readings taken from others to which he had access. It agreed with the common faith because it was founded on manuscripts which in the providence of God were readily available” (Edward Hills, The King James Bible Defended, p. 198).

2. Erasmus knew about the variant readings that are known to modern textual critics.

a. As Frederick Nolan observed: “With respect to Manuscripts, it is indisputable that he [Erasmus] was acquainted with every variety which is known to us; HAVING DISTRIBUTED THEM INTO TWO PRINCIPAL CLASSES, one of which corresponds with the Complutensian edition [the Received Text], and the other with the Vatican manuscript [corresponding to the modern critical text]. And he has specified the positive grounds on which he received the one and rejected the other. The former was in the possession of the Greek church, the latter in that of the Latin; judging from the internal evidence he had as good reason to conclude the Eastern church had not corrupted their received text as he had grounds to suspect the Rhodians from whom the Western church derived their manuscripts, had accommodated them to the Latin Vulgate. One short insinuation which he has thrown out, sufficiently proves that his objections to these manuscripts lay more deep; and they do immortal credit to his sagacity. In the age in which the Vulgate was formed, the church, he was aware, was infested with Origenists and Arians; an affinity between any manuscript and that version, consequently conveyed some suspicion that its text was corrupted" (Nolan, Inquiry into the Integrity of the Greek Vulgate, or Received Text of the New Testament, London, 1815, pp. 413-15).

b. “For the first edition Erasmus had before him ten manuscripts, four of which he found in England, and five at Basle. ... The last codex was lent him by John Reuchlin ... (and) ‘appeared to Erasmus so old that it might have come from the apostolic age.’ He was aware of Vaticanus in the Vatican Library and had a friend by the name of Bombasius research that for him. He, however, rejected the characteristic variants of Vaticanus which distinguishes itself from the Received Text. (These variants are what would become the distinguishing characteristics of the critical text more than 350 years later.)” (Preserved Smith, Erasmus: A Study of His Life, Ideals, and Place in History, 1923). Erasmus was given 365 select readings from Vaticanus. “A correspondent of Erasmus in 1533 sent that scholar a number of selected readings from it [Codex B], as proof [or so says that correspondent] of its superiority to the Received Text” (Frederic Kenyon, Our Bible and the Ancient Manuscripts, 1895; S.P. Tregelles, On the Printed Text of the Greek Testament; cited from Hills).

c. Erasmus discussed these variants in his notes. “Indeed almost all the important variant readings known to scholars today were already known to Erasmus more than 460 years ago and discussed in the notes (previously prepared) which he placed after the text in his editions of the Greek New Testament. Here, for example, Erasmus dealt with such problem passages as the conclusion of the Lord’s Prayer (Matt. 6:13), the interview of the rich young man with Jesus (Matt. 19:17-22), the ending of Mark (Mark 16:9-20), the angelic song (Luke 2:14), the angel, agony, and bloody seat omitted (Luke 22:43-44), the woman taken in adultery (John 7:53-8:11), and the mystery of godliness” (1 Tim. 3:16) (Edward Hills, pp. 198-199).

3. Erasmus also had the textual evidence from the writings of ancient church leaders and from ancient Bible translations. “Nothing was more important at the dawn of the Reformation than the publication of the Testament of Jesus Christ in the original language. Never had Erasmus worked so carefully. ‘If I told what sweat it cost me, no one would believe me.’ HE HAD COLLATED MANY GREEK MSS. of the New Testament, and WAS SURROUNDED BY ALL THE COMMENTARIES AND TRANSLATIONS, by the writings of Origen, Cyprian, Ambrose, Basil, Chrysostom, Cyril, Jerome, and Augustine. ... When a knowledge of Hebrew was necessary, he had consulted Capito, and more particularly Ecolampadius. Nothing without Theseus, said he of the latter, making use of a Greek proverb” (J.H. Merle D’Aubigne, History of the Reformation of the Sixteenth Century, New York: Hurst & Company, 1835, Vol. 5, p. 157).

 

4. Erasmus knew that the manuscripts he selected reflected the reading of the common text, and he was guided by this “common faith.”

“Long before the Protestant Reformation, the God-guided usage of the Church had produced throughout Western Christendom a common faith concerning the New Testament text, namely, a general belief that the currently received New Testament text, primarily the Greek text and secondarily the Latin text, was the True New Testament Text which had been preserved by God’s special providence. It was this common faith that guided Erasmus and the other early editors of the Textus Receptus. ...

“In Erasmus’ day [the common] view occupied the middle ground between the humanistic view and the scholastic view. Those that held this view acknowledged that the Scriptures had been providentially preserved down through the ages. They did not, however, agree with the scholastic theologians in tying this providential preservation to the Latin Vulgate. On the contrary, along with Laurentius Vallas and other humanists, they asserted the superiority of the Greek New Testament text. This common view remained a faith rather than a well articulated theory. No one at that time drew the logical but unpalatable conclusion that the Greek Church rather than the Roman Church had been the providentially appointed guardian of the New Testament text. But this view, though vaguely apprehended, was widely held, so much so that it may justly be called the common view. Before the Council of Trent (1546) it was favored by some of the highest officials of the Roman Church, notably, it seems, by Leo X, who was pope from 1513-1521 and to whom Erasmus dedicated his New Testament. Erasmus’ close friends also, John Colet, for example, and Thomas More and Jacques Lefevre, all of whom like Erasmus sought to reform the Roman Catholic Church from within, likewise adhered to this common view. Even the scholastic theologian Martin Dorp was finally persuaded by Thomas More to adopt it. In the days of Erasmus, therefore, it was commonly believed by well informed Christians that the original New Testament text had been providentially preserved in the current New Testament text, primarily in the current Greek text and secondarily in the current Latin text. Erasmus was influenced by this common faith and probably shared it, and God used to providentially to guide Erasmus in his editorial labors on the Textus Receptus. ...

“But if Erasmus was cautious in his notes, much more was he so in his text, for this is what would strike the reader’s eye immediately. Hence in the editing of his Greek New Testament text especially Erasmus was guided by the common faith in the current text. And back of this common faith was the controlling providence of God. For this reason Erasmus’ humanistic tendencies do not appear in the Textus Receptus which he produced. Although not himself outstanding as a man of faith, in his editorial labors on this text he was providentially influenced and guided by the faith of others. In spite of his humanistic tendencies Erasmus was clearly used of God to place the Greek New Testament in print, just as Martin Luther was used of God to bring the Protestant Reformation in spite of the fact that, at least at first, he shared Erasmus’ doubts concerning Hebrews, James, Jude and Revelation” (Edward F. Hills, The King James Version Defended, 4th edition, pp. 193, 197, 199).

More from Will Kinney:

"Secondly, the King James Bible translators did not even primarily rely on the Greek text of Erasmus, but rather that of Beza and Stephanus, both of whom used many more Greek manuscripts in compiling their Greek editions."

4. I do not claim that there was no word of God before the KJV, I'm sure the word of God existed in other languages at this time. I simply believe the KJV is the best translation and the only one we should use for english speaking people. Of course I am not really sure what translations or texts people were reading around this time, especially because the Catholic church was very restrictive. I fail to see how this point you are trying to make proves anything.

5. How do you know that there is no error free Hebrew or Greek text? Do you know that for sure? Or are you being a parrot? Do you believe Jesus when he said heaven and earth shall pass away by my words shall not pass away? or when Jesus said not one jot or tittle shall fail from the Law till all be fullfilled? or what about where the grass withereth and flower fadeth but the word of the Lord shall stand forever?

 

Probably because they are following in the footsteps of the apostate scholars that went before them without realizing the unbelief prevalent in the theories handed down to them.

All of the "top" scientists in this world also believe in evolution, doesn't mean it's true.

 

I have a question for you Evan, Do you believe that there exists anywhere on this earth for us to observe, a complete, perfect, inerrant bible?