What is meant by the claim that the KJV is the preserved word of God

[Logos1560]

Some KJV defenders seem to assume or think that the KJV is a word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture and that it preserves every word that God gave to the prophets and apostles. They would evidently claim that the Scriptures teach word preservation and not thought preservation. What do some KJV defenders mean when they assert that the KJV is the preserved word of God?

Do these KJV defenders ignore important facts provided by the KJV translators themselves in the 1611 edition of the KJV?
In their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the makers of the KJV clearly acknowledged that they did not always provide in their English translation a word-for-word rendering for each original language word in their underlying original language texts. They sometimes give the English rendering of an original language word in their marginal note that they do not include in their English translation. Thus, the KJV translators' own marginal notes provide clear evidence that they sometimes did not give an English word for an original language word that they found in their underlying original language texts.

How can the KJV supposedly preserve each and every word given by God to the prophets and apostles when there are actual times that the makers of the KJV did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their 1611 English translation? Are the words that the KJV translators added for which they had no original language word of Scripture preserved words of God that had been given to the prophets and apostles?

In the following examples, some possible places of where the KJV may not have an individual, literal English rendering for each original language word in its underlying texts are given. In order to point out more clearly these examples to English readers, some English translations made from the same basic original language texts as used in the making of the KJV are also quoted in the comparisons. Along with sometimes citing the Geneva Bible or the NKJV, one of the other translations cited is Young’s Literal Translation. In his 1862 preface to the first edition, Robert Young wrote: “It has been no part of the Translator’s plan to attempt to form a New Hebrew or Greek Text—he has therefore somewhat rigidly adhered to the received ones.” Another source checked for these examples would be the original language texts and English renderings in Jay Green’s 1986 The Interlinear Bible.

Genesis 7:22 [1611 margin—“Hebr. The breath of the spirit of life”]
Every thing in whose nostrils the spirit of life did breathe [1560 Geneva Bible]
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life [1611 KJV]
All in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit [YLT]
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life [NKJV]

Joshua 9:11
Take victuals with you [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. In your hand”]
Take in your hand provision [YLT]
Take provisions in your hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Judges 11:3
fled from his brethren [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb from the face”]
fleeth from the face of his brethren [YLT]
fled from the face of his brothers [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 17:13
by all the prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of all”]
by the hand of every prophet [YLT]
by the hand of all His prophets [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 19:23
By thy messengers [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
By the hand of thy messengers [YLT]
By the hand of your messengers [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Job 36:14
Their soul dieth in youth [1560 Geneva Bible]
They die in youth [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. their soul dieth”]
Their soul dieth in youth [YLT]

Isaiah 5:24
as the flame of fire [1560 Geneva]
as the fire [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. the tongue of fire”]
as a tongue of fire [YLT]
as the tongue of fire [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Isaiah 20:2
by the hand of Isaiah [1560 Geneva]
by Isaiah [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Isaiah”]
by the hand of Isaiah [YLT]

Isaiah 21:15
from the drawn sword [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. from the face”]
From the face of the stretched-out sword [YLT]]

Hosea 10:7
upon the water [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb the face of the water”]
on the face of the waters [YLT]
on the face of the water [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

 

[Yeshua1]

Some KJV defenders seem to assume or think that the KJV is a word-for-word translation of each original language word of Scripture and that it preserves every word that God gave to the prophets and apostles. They would evidently claim that the Scriptures teach word preservation and not thought preservation. What do some KJV defenders mean when they assert that the KJV is the preserved word of God?

Do these KJV defenders ignore important facts provided by the KJV translators themselves in the 1611 edition of the KJV?
In their marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, the makers of the KJV clearly acknowledged that they did not always provide in their English translation a word-for-word rendering for each original language word in their underlying original language texts. They sometimes give the English rendering of an original language word in their marginal note that they do not include in their English translation. Thus, the KJV translators' own marginal notes provide clear evidence that they sometimes did not give an English word for an original language word that they found in their underlying original language texts.

How can the KJV supposedly preserve each and every word given by God to the prophets and apostles when there are actual times that the makers of the KJV did not provide an English rendering for an original language word in their 1611 English translation? Are the words that the KJV translators added for which they had no original language word of Scripture preserved words of God that had been given to the prophets and apostles?

In the following examples, some possible places of where the KJV may not have an individual, literal English rendering for each original language word in its underlying texts are given. In order to point out more clearly these examples to English readers, some English translations made from the same basic original language texts as used in the making of the KJV are also quoted in the comparisons. Along with sometimes citing the Geneva Bible or the NKJV, one of the other translations cited is Young’s Literal Translation. In his 1862 preface to the first edition, Robert Young wrote: “It has been no part of the Translator’s plan to attempt to form a New Hebrew or Greek Text—he has therefore somewhat rigidly adhered to the received ones.” Another source checked for these examples would be the original language texts and English renderings in Jay Green’s 1986 The Interlinear Bible.

Genesis 7:22 [1611 margin—“Hebr. The breath of the spirit of life”]
Every thing in whose nostrils the spirit of life did breathe [1560 Geneva Bible]
All in whose nostrils was the breath of life [1611 KJV]
All in whose nostrils is breath of a living spirit [YLT]
All in whose nostrils was the breath of the spirit of life [NKJV]

Joshua 9:11
Take victuals with you [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. In your hand”]
Take in your hand provision [YLT]
Take provisions in your hand [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Judges 11:3
fled from his brethren [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb from the face”]
fleeth from the face of his brethren [YLT]
fled from the face of his brothers [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 17:13
by all the prophets [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of all”]
by the hand of every prophet [YLT]
by the hand of all His prophets [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

2 Kings 19:23
By thy messengers [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of”]
By the hand of thy messengers [YLT]
By the hand of your messengers [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Job 36:14
Their soul dieth in youth [1560 Geneva Bible]
They die in youth [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. their soul dieth”]
Their soul dieth in youth [YLT]

Isaiah 5:24
as the flame of fire [1560 Geneva]
as the fire [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Hebr. the tongue of fire”]
as a tongue of fire [YLT]
as the tongue of fire [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

Isaiah 20:2
by the hand of Isaiah [1560 Geneva]
by Isaiah [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. by the hand of Isaiah”]
by the hand of Isaiah [YLT]

Isaiah 21:15
from the drawn sword [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb. from the face”]
From the face of the stretched-out sword [YLT]]

Hosea 10:7
upon the water [1611 KJV] [1611 margin—“Heb the face of the water”]
on the face of the waters [YLT]
on the face of the water [Literal Translation in Interlinear Bible]

The ultimate ignorance shown by some KJVO was when they stated that the KJV would correct mistakes in the original language texts!

 

[Logos1560]

D. A. Waite maintained that the KJV “preserves all of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Bible by means of an accurate English translation of those Words” (Fundamental Deception of Bible Preservation, p. 75).
Waite asserted: “In our King James Bible, we have God’s Words kept intact in English because of its accurate translation of the verbal plenary preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it” (p. 130).
Waite claimed that “the King James accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 39). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible ‘preserves’ (with a small ‘p’) by means of an accurate translation into the English language, every word of the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie it” (p. 98).

 

[AV]

Words mean thoughts

If we are being scriptural with the word 'word' as in 'every word of God' it means saying. For example

Rom.13:9 "if there be any other commandment, it is briefly comprehended in this saying, namely, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Gal.5:14 "For all the law is fulfilled in one word, even in this; Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself."

Acts 28:25 "...Paul had spoken one word, Well spake the Holy Ghost by Esaias the prophet unto our fathers,26 Saying, Go unto this people, and say, Hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and not perceive:27 For the heart of this people is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes have they closed; lest they should see with their eyes, and hear with their ears, and understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.28 Be it known therefore unto you, that the salvation of God is sent unto the Gentiles, and that they will hear it.

(Also see Col.1:5, 2 Thes.3:14, Act.10:44, 13:15, 1 Cor.12- "word of wisdom" and "word of knowledge" would mean a thought or saying).

I think almost every time (if memory serves me) the word ‘word’ appears in the KJV it means saying.

Gen.15:1 After these things the word of the Lord came unto Abram in a vision, saying, Fear not, Abram: I am thy shield, and thy exceeding great reward.

Ex.12:35 And the children of Israel did according to the word of Moses; and they borrowed of the Egyptians jewels of silver, and jewels of gold, and raiment:

This concept goes a long way in understanding many of the variations found historically in the majority of manuscripts and various translations. Or even between the gospel accounts and New Testament references to the Old Testament. It does not pose a problem for the balanced KJV only perspective we are exploring here:
conceal a thing

 

[Logos1560]

"Here are two positions taken on the preservation of scripture. Firstly that God has preserved his words in translations of a book that is self authenticating, and secondly that God has preserved his words in multiple manuscripts, fragments, books and writings and it is the job of each Christian to comb these documents and use scientific and historical research and assumptions, then construct and translate for themselves a book containing most of the words of God as originally given- with a high degree of probability. Interestingly we know which fragments are scripture because we have it in our hands to judge. We know an ancient manuscript is a copy of scripture because we have a book to judge it against.
This former is scripturally supported, the latter is scripturally condemned"

AV, the web site to which you appeal does not clearly demonstrate that it presents a consistent, balanced scriptural perspective since it fails to prove that the Scriptures teach its KJV-only theory. This web site does not clearly demonstrate that the Scriptures support the new theory that preservation was transferred to different words in a translation. The KJV as a translation was based on multiple, textually-varying sources and its making involved the inconsistent textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and one group of Church of England critics in 1611, which in effect would be the position that this web site condemns.

The 1611 edition of the KJV was not "self-authenticating" since the preserved Scriptures in the original languages were used by later editors /printers as the proper standard for making corrections and revisions to it.

 

[Yeshua1]

AV, the web site to which you appeal does not clearly demonstrate that it presents a consistent, balanced scriptural perspective since it fails to prove that the Scriptures teach its KJV-only theory. This web site does not clearly demonstrate that the Scriptures support the new theory that preservation was transferred to different words in a translation. The KJV as a translation was based on multiple, textually-varying sources and its making involved the inconsistent textual criticism decisions of Erasmus, Stephanus, Beza, and one group of Church of England critics in 1611, which in effect would be the position that this web site condemns.

The 1611 edition of the KJV was not "self-authenticating" since the preserved Scriptures in the original languages were used by later editors /printers as the proper standard for making corrections and revisions to it.

What about the Vulgate, Luthers version, Geneva/Bishop et all?

 

[Yeshua1]

D. A. Waite maintained that the KJV “preserves all of the Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words of the Bible by means of an accurate English translation of those Words” (Fundamental Deception of Bible Preservation, p. 75).
Waite asserted: “In our King James Bible, we have God’s Words kept intact in English because of its accurate translation of the verbal plenary preserved Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek Words that underlie it” (p. 130).
Waite claimed that “the King James accurately translates every Hebrew and Greek Word into the English language” (Foes of the KJB Refuted, p. 39). Waite declared: “I believe that the King James Bible ‘preserves’ (with a small ‘p’) by means of an accurate translation into the English language, every word of the Hebrew and Greek texts that underlie it” (p. 98).

Too bad for them that they also added in english words NOT in original texts, and also had varient readings!

 

[Rippon]

It does not pose a problem for the balanced KJV only perspective we are exploring here:

Hmm..."the balanced KJV only perspective" is an oxymoron.

 

[AV]

Logos1560
Thanks for the feedback; the point I was trying to make there was that a 'word' in scripture would mean a saying and thus make room for variation over time and through languages.

 

[AV]

The question then becomes- How much variation and according to who?

 

[AV]

Too bad for them that they also added in english words NOT in original texts, and also had varient readings!

Yeshua1,

The Preface to the NASB 'PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION' states:
"When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader, a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom. In the instances where this has been done, the more literal rendering has been indicated in the notes. There are a few exceptions to this procedure. In particular, frequently "And" is not translated at the beginning of sentences because of differences in style between ancient and modern writing. Punctuation is a relatively modern invention, and ancient writers often linked most of their sentences with "and" or other connectives. Also, the Hebrew idiom "answered and said" is sometimes reduced to "answered" or "said" as demanded by the context. For current English the idiom "it came about that" has not been translated in the New Testament except when a major transition is needed."
Do you agree with these principals even if you don't agree with where they were applied?

 

[Rippon]

The Preface to the NASB 'PRINCIPLES OF TRANSLATION' states:
"When it was felt that the word-for-word literalness was unacceptable to the modern reader, a change was made in the direction of a more current English idiom. In the instances where this has been done, the more literal rendering has been indicated in the notes. There are a few exceptions to this procedure. In particular, frequently "And" is not translated at the beginning of sentences because of differences in style between ancient and modern writing. Punctuation is a relatively modern invention, and ancient writers often linked most of their sentences with "and" or other connectives. Also, the Hebrew idiom "answered and said" is sometimes reduced to "answered" or "said" as demanded by the context. For current English the idiom "it came about that" has not been translated in the New Testament except when a major transition is needed."

I entirely agree with the above. Any reasonable person would.

 

[AV]

I thought so- just want to insure that you apply the same standards to the KJV translators.

 

[Logos1560]

I thought so- just want to insure that you apply the same standards to the KJV translators.

It is KJV-only advocates whose claims show that they do not apply the exact same standards and measures to the KJV translators and the translators of the pre-1611 English Bibles that they attempt to apply to later English Bible translators. KJV-only advocates do not give the same latitude or discretion in translating to post-1611 English translators that they in effect give to the KJV translators.

 

[Yeshua1]

It is KJV-only advocates whose claims show that they do not apply the exact same standards and measures to the KJV translators and the translators of the pre-1611 English Bibles that they attempt to apply to later English Bible translators. KJV-only advocates do not give the same latitude or discretion in translating to post-1611 English translators that they in effect give to the KJV translators.

The translators of the Kjv did do many of the same things the modern version did in translation....