Home » Search results for 'king james version'
Search Results for: king james version
God’s Perfect Preservation of the Old Testament Hebrew Text and the King James Version (Part Two)
Most talk about the text of the Bible focuses on the New Testament. The Old Testament is much larger and yet there is less variation in extant copies of the Old Testament than the New. As well, more Christian scholars know the Greek than the Hebrew, and when they know the Hebrew, they also know the Greek better.
Scripture teaches the preservation of all of scripture in the original languages, the languages in which scripture was written. Even if the conversation mainly centers on the New Testament, God preserved the Old Testament perfectly too. In recent days, some are talking more about the Old Testament again. Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, addressed the preservation of the Old Testament and the variation of a Hebrew critical text.
No Translation Above Preserved Hebrew Text
I think you would be right to detect hypocrisy in many of those who wish to alter the preserved Hebrew text of the Old Testament with a Greek, Latin, or Syriac translation. Not necessarily in this order, but, first, it flies in the face of “manuscript evidence.” It’s not because there isn’t evidence — around three hundred extant ancient handwritten copies of the Hebrew Masoretic text exist. Second, critical text advocates savagely attack those who identify preservation in a translation. I don’t believe God preserved His words in a translation, but they actually do in their underlying Old Testament text for the modern versions.
In a related issue, the same critical text supporters most often say that Jesus quoted from a Greek translation of the Old Testament, “the Septuagint.” As someone reads the references or mentions of the Old Testament by Jesus in the Gospels, he will notice that there are not exact quotations of the Hebrew Masoretic text. Even when you compare the English translation of the Hebrew in the Old Testament passage and compare it with the English translation of the Greek in the New Testament, they won’t match exactly most of the time. What was happening in these passages? Is this evidence that we don’t have an identical text to them?
View of the Septuagint
It is a popular and false notion that Christians in the first century used a Greek translation of the Hebrew Bible, called the Septuagint, as their scriptures, so they quoted from it. All the New Testament “quotations” of the Old Testament have at least minor variants from the various editions of the Septuagint in all but one place: a quote in Matthew 21:16 is identical to a part of Psalm 8:3 in Ralf’s edition of the Septuagint.
When you read the New Testament and find the 320 or so usages or allusions to the Old Testament in it, you will see that they are not identical. Some might explain that as a translation of a translation, that is, the Old Testament, Hebrew to English, and the New Testament, Hebrew to Greek to English, differences will occur by a sheer dissipation of a third language. Online and in other locations you can compare an English translation of the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament with an English translation of one edition of the Septuagint and one of the Hebrew Masoretic to compare the latter two with the first.
I see value in the Septuagint, whichever edition, since there are several. Those various editions give larger sample sizes of Greek usage for meaning and syntax for understanding the Greek biblical language of the New Testament. They can help with the study of both the Old and New Testaments. As an example, Jewish translators translated the Old Testament Hebrew word almah in Isaiah 7:14 parthenos, which is the specific Greek word for “virgin,” not “young woman.” All of this answers the question, “How would people have understood the word, phrase, or sentence who heard it in that day?”
What Did New Testament Authors Do?
The mentions of the Old Testament in the New are most often not verbatim quotations of the Hebrew. That’s not what the New Testament authors were doing. They were serious about the preservation of the Old Testament as seen in the regular use of the words, “it is written.” This is a perfect passive verb that says passage continues written. The writing of the passage was complete with the results of that writing ongoing. This communicates the preservation of scripture.
The New Testament authors knew the Old Testament well, so they didn’t need a Greek translation of it. The New Testament writers could do their own translation of a Hebrew text. They most often, however, did a “targum,” some quoting and some paraphrasing from memory and also deliberately using the words of the text to make their theological or practical point from the Bible. Preachers continue to do this today, sometimes quoting directly from a translation and other times making an allusion or reference to the passage.
Reliance on the Septuagint?
What I’m explaining about “targumming” is the explanation of John Owen and others through history as to the variation between the Old Testament Hebrew and the Greek or English translation. Some references to the Old Testament are closer to an edition of the Septuagint than the Hebrew Masoretic text, sometimes almost identical. Were the scriptural authors relying on a Septuagint, which predated the New Testament?
If New Testament authors relied on what we know of the Greek Septuagint today, then they depended on a corrupt edition or version of scripture. Some give this as an argument for the validation of a corrupt text. They say that God doesn’t care about the very words of the Bible, just its message. Instead, God kept the message very intact, but not the exact words. In addition, they often say that the Septuagint is evidence for the acceptance of something short of a perfect text. These approaches to the Septuagint are mere theories founded on faulty presuppositions.
John Owen also referred to this similarity between the usages of the New Testament authors with a translation of the Greek Old Testament, such as the Septuagint. He said that the likely explanation was that Christians adapted the text of the Septuagint to the New Testament quotations out of respect of Jesus and the New Testament authors. Others have echoed that down through history. Owen wasn’t alone. It is a possibility.
John Owen
In Owen’s first volume in his three thousand page Hebrews commentary, he spends a few pages speaking on the Septuagint and the concept of quotations from it. Owen writes (pp. 67-68):
Concerning these, and some other places, many confidently affirm, that the apostle waved the original, and reported the words from the translation of the LXX. . . . [T]his boldness in correcting the text, and fancying without proof, testimony, or probability, of other ancient copies of the Scripture of the Old Testament, differing in many things from them which alone remain, and which indeed were ever in the world, may quickly prove pernicious to the church of God. . . .
[I]t is highly probable, that the apostle, according to his wonted manner, which appears in almost all the citations used by him in this epistle, reporting the sense and import of the places, in words of his own, the Christian transcribers of the Greek Bible inserted his expressions into the text, either as judging them a more proper version of the original, (whereof they were ignorant) than that of the LXX., or out of a preposterous zeal to take away the appearance of a diversity between the text and the apostle’s citation of it.
And thus in those testimonies where there is a real variation from the Hebrew original, the apostle took not his words from the translation of the LXX. but his words were afterwards inserted into that translation.
Theories of Men Versus the Promises of God
Theories of men should not upend or variate the promises of God. God’s promises stand. He promised to preserve the original language text. We should believe it. No one should believe that Jesus or one of the apostles quoted from a corrupted Greek translation. That contradicts the biblical doctrine of the preservation of scripture. Other answers exist.
Whatever position someone takes on the Septuagint, it should not contradict what God already said He would do. There is no authority to historical theories based on no or tenuous evidence at best. The best explanation is one that continues a high view of scripture. One should not rely on one of the editions of the Greek Septuagint for deciding what scripture is. It should not correct the received Hebrew text of the Old Testament. Instead, everyone should believe what God said He would do and acknowledge its fulfillment in history.
God’s Perfect Preservation of the Old Testament Hebrew Text and the King James Version (Part One)
Preservation of Old Testament in Hebrew
If someone believes in the perfect preservation of scripture, he also believes in the perfect preservation of the Hebrew Old Testament. In discussions and debate about the text of scripture and translation, almost all of it relates to the New Testament, where there is a higher percentage of variation in the extant Greek manuscripts. People don’t spend as much time quibbling over the Old Testament. Nevertheless, people have differences and questions about the Old Testament text.
Our book, Thou Shalt Keep Them, does address the Old Testament. It looks at changes in the Hebrew text used in the modern versions. Even though the King James Translators relied on the Hebrew Masoretic text of the Old Testament, translators for modern English versions of the Old Testament used a variation of sources from which to translate. In addition to the Hebrew Masoretic text, as an example, the translators of the English Standard Version (ESV) also used Alfred Ralf’s 1935 critical edition of the Greek Septuagint (LXX).
Modern Versions and the Original Languages of the Old Testament
The ESV translators also compared the Masoretic with the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS), a text discovered almost 75 years ago in caves near the Dead Sea in Israel, and made changes based on their textual theories. They also relied on the Samaritan Pentateuch, a version of the first five books of the Hebrew Bible, maintained by Samaritans. In addition, the ESV committee used the Syriac Peshitta, an early translation of the Bible into Syriac, a dialect of Middle Aramaic, and lastly the Latin Vulgate, the Latin translation of the Bible by Jerome in the late 4th century AD.
As I see it, a vast majority of the people who use modern versions like the ESV do not know that the Old and New Testaments come from a different text than the King James Version. Critical text and modern version advocates don’t mention this. Their own users see their versions as just updated translations in easier, more modern English, not a different underlying text.
Historical Doctrine of Preservation of Scripture
London Baptist Confession
Preservation of scripture means preservation of the original language text of scripture. The originals of the Old Testament are Hebrew and a very tiny amount of Aramaic. That’s what God promised to preserve, even with Jesus’ declaration of jots and tittles in Matthew 5:18. This also is the historic position of the church, as seen in the London Baptist Confession of Faith (1689):
The Old Testament in Hebrew (which was the native language of the people of God of old), and the New Testament in Greek (which at the time of the writing of it was most generally known to the nations), being immediately inspired by God, and by his singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentic; so as in all controversies of religion, the church is finally to appeal to them.
Isaiah 59:21
For preservation to be preservation, it preserves something already there. What was there at the beginning was a Hebrew text and God preserved that, using Old Testament Israel to do it. God also promised perfect preservation. This includes with it availability that God declares among other places in Isaiah 59:21:
As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the Lord; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed’s seed, saith the Lord, from henceforth and for ever.
This is called getting your bibliology, your doctrine of the Bible, from the Bible itself. What does God say He did, that He is doing, and that He will do with the Bible. That’s how you get doctrine and that’s what you believe. This pleases God (Hebrews 11:6). He wants us to believe Him.
Septuagint
Enter the Septuagint. The Septuagint isn’t Hebrew. It is an apparently Greek translation of the Hebrew. I say “apparently,” because the translation of the various iterations of the Septuagint differ greatly from the Hebrew Masoretic text.
It seems acceptable today among themselves for various critical text and modern version proponents to advocate for the superiority of the Septuagint, even though it is a translation. They are fine with correcting the Hebrew text with a Greek translation. I don’t believe there is a published ESV edition of the Hebrew text, but it seems that the committee for the ESV changed the Hebrew Masoretic 50-100 times based on the Greek Septuagint. They also seemingly altered the Masoretic 20-30 times each for both the Latin Vulgate and the Syriac Peshitta. They back translated into the Hebrew from the Greek, Latin, and Syriac languages.
Psalm 22:16
At this juncture, I think it is important to stop to answer what would be a very likely argument from those who believe God preserved His Words through translations and not the Hebrew language text. In other words, jots and tittles did in fact pass away in contradiction to what God promised. They will say that Masoretic text believers will do the same thing as they in one place: Psalm 22:16. This one apparent exception says that we both think the same way on this issue. They would say that the King James Version of Psalm 22:16 proceeds from the Greek Septuagint and not the Hebrew Masoretic.
Here is a translation of Psalm 22:16 from first the King James Version, second the Brenton’s 1870 edition of the English translation of the Codex Vaticanus edition of the Septuagint, which included the Apocrypha, and third the Jewish Publication Society’s 1917 English translation of the Hebrew Masoretic:
KJV: For dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked have inclosed me: they pierced my hands and my feet.
Brenton Septuagint: For many dogs have compassed me: the assembly of the wicked doers has beset me round: they pierced my hands and my feet.
JPS: For dogs have encompassed me; a company of evil-doers have inclosed me; like a lion, they are at my hands and my feet.
For your information, the Hebrew text of the Dead Sea Scrolls agrees with the KJV and the Brenton Septuagint. The criticism here is that the last part of the verse is different in the Hebrew Masoretic text underlying the King James Version. Critics say that the KJV translators relied on the Greek Septuagint in this one place. Is this true? The most conservative position that harmonizes with the biblical doctrine of preservation says that the KJV translators had Hebrew copies of what they translated.
William Whitaker and Disputations on Holy Scripture
William Whitaker wrote the following in 1588 (pp. 159-160) in his Disputations on Holy Scripture:
All Christians read, “They pierced my hands and my feet.” But the Hebrew MSS. have not Caru “they pierced,” but Caari, “as a Lion.” I answer, that this is the only specious indication of corruption in the Hebrew original; yet it is easy to protect this place from their [Catholics and others who are against the preservation of Scripture] reproaches. For, first, learned men testify that many Hebrew copies are found in which the reading is Caru; Andradius, Defens. Trid. Lib. IV., and Galatinus, Lib. VIII. C. 17. And John Isaac writes that he had himself seen such a copy, in his book against Lindanus, Lib. II.; and the Masorites themselves affirm that it was so written in some corrected copies.
Secondly, in those books which have this reading, the Masorites tell us that it is not to be taken in the common acceptation: whence it plainly appears that nothing was farther from their minds than a design to corrupt the passage. Thirdly, the place is no no otherwise read than it was formerly before Jerome’s time. For the Chaldee Paraphrast has conjoined both readings, and the Masorites testify that there is a twofold reading of this place. Jerome, too, in his Psalter read in the Hebrew Caari, as our books have it, though he rendered it “fixerunt.” So that it can never be proved, at least from this place, that the Hebrew originals were corrupted after the time of Jerome.
Advocates of modern textual criticism and modern versions don’t seem to care or respect the writings of men like Whitaker, who represents the historical doctrine of true believers. They never mention them or give them credit. Whitaker says there are “many Hebrew copies found in which the reading” is the same as that from which the King James Version translated.
More to Come
The New King James Version Does Not Come From the Same Text as the King James Version
In recent days at his youtube channel, Mark Ward again compared the New King James Version (NKJV) with the King James Version (KJV). This goes back a few years, when Ward wrote a blog post that said that the NKJV and the KJV came from an identical Greek New Testament text. In the comment section, I started giving him examples of differences, five at a time. I provided these examples after he made his claim. His claim did not come from his own personal research. After continuing to give examples about five at a time, that showed his claim was wrong, Ward admitted that the two texts were not the same in at least six places.
Systematic Search
The standard as to whether the NKJV and KJV are different, however, is not the few differences that I found in the little time after Ward made his claim. Ward speaks about the differences as though there were just six that really don’t matter much to the meaning of the text. He does not mention that he did not find these variations himself. He also treats those six like they represent all of the differences. It’s just not true though. I hardly looked for examples and found the few ones that I sent him without any systematic search.
Since Mark Ward won’t stop misrepresenting the issue of the differences between the text underlying the NKJV and the KJV, I decided to start a more systematic search in my spare time. I began in Matthew 1 to start chapter by chapter through the New Testament, and I’m to the fifth chapter of Mark So, this is just Matthew — one gospel — and then Mark 1-5. That doesn’t mean that I found every example, because I don’t have a copy of the text for the NKJV. Perhaps one doesn’t exist.
If someone were trying to study and teach from the NKJV and use the original languages, what text would he use for that study? I’m asserting there is none. It doesn’t come from the same text as the KJV so an underlying text of the NKJV, that same as that translation, is not available. That’s a tough one, wouldn’t you say?
Examples
To find my examples, I had to look at the two translations and compare them. When I saw differences, then I went to the Greek text to see if these differences were the result of a different text. Again, Mark Ward didn’t do this work. He doesn’t look for these examples. How does someone report something like fact that he doesn’t even know? All of the examples to which Mark refers came from my finding them for him.
Without further adieu, below are the most recent examples I found of differences between the underlying text of the NKJV and the KJV [CT=Critical Text, TR=Textus Receptus].
Matthew
- 1:18—KJV, TR, ”as,” gar versus NKJV, CT, no “as,” no gar
- 7:9-10—KJV, TR, “if he ask,” aorist versus NKJV, CT, “if he asks,” future
- 9:17—KJV, TR, “perish,” future middle versus NKJV, CT, “are ruined,” present passive
- 9:22—NKJV, CT, strepho, versus KJV, TR, “turned him about”epistrepho, “turned around”
- 10:19—KJV, TR, “shall speak,” future versus NKJV, CT, “should speak,” subjunctive
- 13:36—NKJV, CT, “explain,” diasapheo versus KJV, TR, “declare,” phrazo
- 16:17—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “and” to start verse
- 18:6—KJV, TR, epi, about,” versus NKJV, CT, peri, “around”
- 19:5—KJV, TR, proskalleo, “shall cleave” versus NKJV, CT, “be joined,” kalleo
- 20:20—KJV, TR, ”of,” para, versus NKJV, CT, apo, “from”
- 21:25—KJV, TR, para, “with” versus NKJV, CT, en, “among”
- 22:10—KJV, TR, hosous, “as many as” versus NKJV, CT, hous, “whom”
- 23:34—KJV, TR, kai, “and” versus NKJV, CT, eliminates kai, no “and”
- 27:3—KJV, TR, apestrephe, “brought again” versus NKJV, CT, apostrepho, ”brought back”
Mark
- 1:16—KJV, TR, de, “now” versus NKJV, CT, kai, “and”
- 2:15—KJV, TR, to, “that” versus NKJV, CT, no to, no “that”
- 2:21—KJV, TR, kai, “also” versus NKJV, CT, no kai, no “also”
- 4:18—KJV, TR, no eisin, “they are” versus NKJV, CT, eisin, “they are” (in italics but in so doing accrediting the CT)
- 5:6—KJV, TR, de, “but” versus NKJV, CT, no de, no “but”
These are nineteen more examples after looking at about one and a third New Testament books. I don’t want to keep searching for these. Rather, I would wish for the other side to defer and just admit that the NKJV translators did not use the same text. In other words, I don’t want them to keep challenging this assertion. The NKJV is not the NKJV. It would come from the same text as the KJV, one would assume, if it were a “New” King James Version. The NKJV comes from a less different text than most modern versions, but it does come from a different text.
Why Does It Matter?
Why does any of this matter? It isn’t a translational issue in this case, but one of the underlying text. This is presuppositional. God promised to preserve every Word. If that’s true, which it is, then this relates to the doctrine of preservation of scripture. Mark Ward and others act like they don’t even understand it. They rarely to never mention it.
In a recent video on this same issue, Mark Ward went on the offensive against the King James Version. It wasn’t a new attack. This is the point. Textual critics say one short phrase in Revelation 16:5 wasn’t in any known manuscript, but was instead a conjectural emendation by Beza (read about this issue here). It is not a phrase that appears in a majority of presently preserved Greek manuscripts. I carefully wrote that last sentence, because a translation of the Latin of Beza doesn’t say it was a conjectural emendation, but instead he wrote:
Therefore, I am not able to doubt but that the true reading should be as I have restored it from an ancient manuscript [hand-written] codex of good faith, truly ο εσομενος.
Men like myself and others with our presuppositions from scripture believe this is what Beza did, not conjectural emendation.
A problem that Ward would not mention in his offensive against the King James Version is that almost all modern versions, ones that he supports, come from a minority of the manuscripts. Not only that, but in hundreds of lines of text in the underlying text of the modern versions there is zero manuscript evidence. They have no manuscript support. Yet, Ward and many, many others, who deny the biblical and historical doctrine of preservation, have no problem advocating most for those modern versions that translate that text.
****************************************
Addendum
I don’t plan on continuing to keep looking up more examples. It wasn’t as those examples did not present themselves as I looked. This makes the point of variations in the textual basis between the NKJV and the KJV. What made this tough is that the NKJV translators said, no differences, and yet there are.
If you trusted the translators, then you didn’t know the differences. Perhaps you never checked. Yes, there’s a difficulty sometimes in deciding translational differences. I tried to find the ones where the differences would or could reflect a difference in the text. A variant needed to exist for me to use the example. It’s easy to come later and defend it as a translational choice, but there is a there, there. If you want to criticize, you could try to do that, and I could just keep looking for more too. This is something perhaps you haven’t done, that is, look on your own.
If you haven’t looked on your own, maybe you could do that, if it matters to you. As I’ve said in the past, for a long time, I assumed the NKJV used Scrivener’s, the same text as the KJV in other words. Then I read someone who said, no, so then I began looking a little and agreed that it wasn’t the same. You really shouldn’t have it both ways, that is, a first way where you say there is no difference. And then you have a second way, where when someone looks up examples and you attack the person doing that. That is having it both ways. It isn’t honest.
Acts 5:30 & James White: King James Version Only Debate
As many blog readers know, I had the privilege of debating James White-who utilized Acts 5:30 as a key part of his argument–on the topic:
The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.
You can watch the debate here at What is Truth? at Faithsaves.net, on YouTube, or on Rumble. A number of Christians posted debate reviews, some of which are discussed in a What is Truth? post here. I also produced a series of debate review videos accessible on my website, on YouTube, and on Rumble. It had been a while since I had made a new one, but I (finally) got around to getting out my thoughts on James White’s argument from this verse:
The God of our fathers raised up Jesus, whom ye slew and hanged on a tree. (Acts 5:30, KJV)
The God of our fathers braised up Jesus, whom you put to death by hanging Him on a tree. (LSB)
James White’s Argument on Acts 5:30
White argued:
1.) The King James Version in Acts 5:30 teaches that the ungodly first slew Christ, and after He was slain, they hanged Him on a tree or cross. This would destroy the gospel by denying that the Lord Jesus died on the cross for our sins; rather, the KJV (supposedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was first killed and then His dead body was hanged on a tree or cross.
2.) The LSB is a superior translation to the KJV because in Acts 5:30 it states that His enemies killed Christ “by hanging Him on a tree,” that is, by crucifying Him.
3.) The Greek of Acts 5:30 contains the participle kremasantes, which must indicate means and be translated as affirming that Christ was slain “by hanging.” It cannot be translated “and hanged.”
4.) The KJV translators simply “missed” that kremasantes was a participle, and not realizing that kremasantes was a participle, they translated it like a finite verb.
5.) “Every English translation” translates kremasantes as a participle of means (that is, “by hanging”). The KJV “is the only one” that translates the Greek as “and hanged.”
6.) There is no Greek word “and” in Acts 5:30. The KJV therefore mistranslates the verse by adding words not found in the Greek text.
7.) Because the KJV (allegedly) teaches the heresy that Christ was killed before He was crucified in Acts 5:30, because the translators were sloppy and missed that the verse had a participle and so disagreed with every other English translation, and because the KJV adds in the word “and” that is not contained in the text, the KJV is an inferior translation in Acts 5:30, and, so, presumably is an inferior translation overall. The LSB (and every other English translation, all of which unite to oppose the KJV in Acts 5:30) are superior, not just in Acts 5:30, but in the entire Bible.
James White has been making his claims against the King James Version’s translation of Acts 5:30 for around 30 years in the several editions of his The King James Only Controversy: Can You Trust Modern Translations? (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2009), and he made them again the debate.
The Truth on Acts 5:30 and James White’s Argument
In my review video, I demonstrate:
1.) James White’ argument from Acts 5:30 does not get him even close to proving the proposition in the debate.
2.) Dr. White’s criticisms of the King James Version in Acts 5:30 are astonishingly uninformed and inaccurate.
3.) White’s claim that the KJV translators simply “missed” that Acts 5:30 contained a participle is painfully unserious.
4.) White claimed that the KJV contains a mistranslation because it supplies the word “and” before “hanged,” when the syntactical category of the attendant circumstance participle (found in Acts 5:30) requires the insertion of an “and.”
5.) To attack the KJV in Acts 5:30, White’s King James Only Controversy invents a fictional Greek grammatical category called “instrumental circumstantial modal” and makes claims about the Greek grammar of Dana and Mantey that have no connection to the actual text of their book.
6.) Failing to account for the Old Testament allusion to Deuteronomy 21:22 in Acts 5:30 is another of many examples of what is lost on account of White’s writing the King James Only Controversy in only a few months and never improving it.
7.) The favorite manuscripts of the Textus Rejectus teach the heresy that the Lord Jesus was murdered by a spear thrust before His crucifixion in Matthew 27:49. To be consistent with White’s line of reasoning, we must recognize the unambiguous superiority of the Textus Receptus because of the egregious error in the Textus Rejectus in Matthew 27:49.
Why? Watch the embedded video below, or watch the debate review video on Acts 5:30 (#15) at faithsaves.net, on Rumble, or on YouTube.
–TDR
Mark Ward / Thomas Ross Videos on King James Version English
As What is Truth? readers may know, Dr. Mark Ward, Bob Jones University graduate and Logos Bible software employee, produced a series of three videos (5/2/2024; 5/9/2024; 5/16/2024–note that I am making it quite easy to find his videos if you want to do so, while he made it difficult to locate the video of mine that he was responding to, which is unfortunate) on his YouTube channel entitled “More New KJV-Only Arguments” in which he responded to my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video (also here on Rumble, or here at FaithSaves). Here is the video as an embed:
I summarized my argument in the video here at What is Truth? in a previous post. Dr. Brandenburg wrote a post about how Dr. Ward said in these videos, concerning me, “I regard him as an extremist of a particularly dangerous kind, the kind that is super intelligent.” This comment by Dr. Ward definitely made me laugh. But watch out–this post is written by a particularly dangerous extremist. Has Dr. Ward warned about the Roman Catholic, Seventh Day Adventist, theologically modernist, and other sorts of damnable heresy that is published by Logos Bible software for whom he works? Maybe he has called this content that his employer publishes “dangerous” somewhere–I am not aware of it if he has. So I suppose all of that is fine, but saying English speakers should continue to use the Bible that has served them so well for 400 years–that is very, very dangerous. Millions of people are going to hell because of Roman Catholicism and theological modernism, but what is truly dangerous is anyone who would advise English speakers to use the Authorized, King James Version, despite a small number of archaic words it contains.
I pointed out in my video that the KJV’s English fits within the parameters of the linguistic difficulty of the original language texts of Scripture. Thus, since the KJV’s English is not harder than the Greek of the New Testament or the Hebrew of the Old Testament, we have an exegetical basis for concluding that we do not need, at this time, to revise the English Authorized Version. We also have an exegetical basis for determining when it would be appropriate to revise the English of the KJV–if it ever becomes significantly harder to read than the original language texts, then it is time for true churches to come together to produce a revision.
There are some serious problems in Ward’s response to my argument, although I appreciate that he actually offered a response. (James White just ignored it, so good for Dr. Ward.) I am not going to point out in this post all of the problems in his book claiming that the English of the KJV is too hard, or his serious inaccuracies in his three videos. I will, however, share with blog readers a comment I offered to part two of his three-part series. I have italicized my comment below and have added some explanatory words within it in bold.
Dear Dr. Ward,
Thank you for taking the time to review my “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11” video in two videos (and apparently a third video coming).
In my comment I specified the name of the video he was critiquing so that people could actually watch it instead of just hearing his critique with a very limited ability to even find and hear first hand what he was arguing against.
Someone brought these videos to my attention and so I thought I should take a peek. I hope that both my video–which, of course, was not about anything you said in particular, but about Dr. White’s comments in our debate–and your response will contribute to Christians thinking Biblically about the issue of Bible translation, and evaluating their philosophy of Bible translation from a sola Scriptura perspective, instead of just creating whatever standard they wish. If my video and your responses lead to that happening, then something useful for God’s kingdom will certainly have been accomplished for His glory.
I really do mean that. I am glad that he made his videos, and I hope that people who are anti-KJVO will start to approach the question of Bible translation exegetically. Of course, if they do, they just might end up becoming perfect preservationists who use exclusively the KJV in English.
Lord willing, at some point I will create a response to your videos. You may not be surprised that I have not found your responses especially compelling, although I am looking forward to hearing what you have to say in part three.
Part three was also less than compelling. Brother Ward did not seem, in some places, to even grasp my argument accurately. For example, in part three Dr. Ward argued that if I was right then we should just add in archaic words when we make new translations, but my point was not about making new translations, but about when it is appropriate to revise an already extant translation. The idea that one should randomly decide to add in archaic words for fun has nothing to do with my argument. For the large majority of the time since God has given the canon of Scripture God’s people would have found more rare or hard-to-understand words in the Hebrew and Greek texts than there are in the KJV, but God never instructed His Apostles and prophets to make a revision of the Hebrew or Greek texts.
I was wondering if you would be so kind as to let me know: 1.) If, before I produced my video, you had written or set forth in any setting an exegetical basis for your position on Bible translations, other than your claim that the KJV is in a different language and so violates 1 Corinthians 14 on not speaking in foreign tongues in the church without an interpreter. I must say that I find the idea that 1 Corinthians 14 teaches that we must abandon the KJV, or at least its exclusive use in English, most unconvincing exegetically. I would like to confirm that you view my claim that we should evaluate what is appropriate for English Bible translations based on the level of difficulty of the Old Testament and New Testament Hebrew and Greek texts as a claim that is indeed “novel” or new to you, and thus as something that you never considered before writing your book Authorized?
It is not good if someone has written an entire book arguing that the KJV’s English is too hard to understand and has given a significant part of his life to turning people away from the King James Bible, and yet has never even thought about comparing it with the lingustic difficulty of the text God gave His people directly by the dictation of the Holy Spirit.
Dr. Ward’s argument that because 1 Corinthians 14 forbids utilizing the miraculous gift of tongues to speak Japanese in 1st century Corinth if there were no Japanese speakers present and no translation into the common language–Greek–or forbids miraculously speaking in the tongue of Zulu if there are no Zulu speakers present, therefore we need to reject the KJV because it is really a foreign language. This, to be kind, is less than convincing. To be blunt, it is ridiculous, and a painful abuse of 1 Corinthians 14. However, that is all the Scripture Dr. Ward has for his position that the English of the KJV is too hard. Would his argument prove too much–would it prove that the Jews in Ezra’s day should have revised the books of Moses, or that the Apostles should not have used the LXX, even when it is accurate? Yes. So we can be thankful that his claim from 1 Corinthians 14 is astonishingly off base. It was fine for the Jews in Malachi’s day to just read the Hebrew Pentateuch, even though their language had changed much more than the English language has between 1611 and today.
2.) If you could please also let me know how many times you have read the Greek NT cover to cover and / or the Hebrew OT, as well as what training in the languages you have, I would appreciate that as well. It will help me to be accurate in what I say in response to you, as I am sure we both believe accuracy is very important, as our God is a God of truth.
Dr. Ward never answered this question, and I suspect the answer is “zero” for both how many times he has read through the Greek NT or the Hebrew OT. There are not a few things that he says in his videos that make me rather strongly suspect this. They are not things one would say were he closely acquainted with the original language texts of Scripture.
Thank you very much. Let me say that I also appreciate that you provided a significant quote from my video and appeared to want to accurately represent me. I thank you for that.
I do appreciate that, as far as I can tell, Dr. Ward did not intentionally misrepresent my argument. Did he misrepresent it? Yes, but I think this was a matter of inaccuracy, not intentionality. I also need to keep in mind that his anti-KJVO side does not approach issues like this through exegesis, through looking at Scripture first to see what it says about preservation and Bible translation, so he is rather like a fish out of water here. I am glad he is trying. I wish he had plainly told his audience where they could find my argument so they could go ad fontes and compare what I actually said with what he argued against.
3.) I would also be interested in seeing if you have any grammatical sources for your claim that the difficulty in Luke-Acts, for example, versus the Johannine literature, is mainly because participles are placed in different locations, as well as your other grammatical claims. Some of the claims seemed quite unusual to my mind, and I would like to know if any Greek grammarians make such affirmations as you made.
He never provided any sources for his claims. I suspect that is because there are no such sources, as people who write Greek and Hebrew grammars are likely to be quite surprised by not a few of the arguments that Dr. Ward made. I do not think that those who have actually read Luke-Acts and the Johannine literature in the New Testament would say that the main or even the chief difficulty in harder NT Greek is knowing what adverbial participles modify. This statement sounds to me like the claim of someone who is not very familiar with the Greek of these books.
I may be into having sources for my claims more than most people who make YouTube videos, but I did not notice any grammatical sources cited in your videos.
That is the problem with producing YouTube videos instead of writing things down, or instead of doing face-to-face debate.
4.) When you spoke about a test that you had given to KJVO pastors that definitively proved that they did not understand the KJV themselves, I was interested and took the test, and had some KJVO folk take it as well. I must say that they did much, much better than did the people whom you surveyed. (I myself got a 19 out of 20, and I think that the one I got wrong was a problem with the question.)
I had never heard of his test, which he mentioned in part 1 of his video, until examining his video, part 1. I decided to take his test. One of the questions was:
“Remove not the ancient landmark, which thy fathers have set.”
(Proverbs 22:28 KJV)
This is a poorly designed question, because more than one of the answers fits both the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English translation in the KJV. Commenting on why the word “remove” here is (allegedly) archaic, Ward affirms:
The Hebrew here means “to displace [that is, to ‘cause (something) to move from its proper or usual place’] a boundary mark.” (HALOT/NOAD)
In 1611 “remove” in a context like this meant “to change position; to move a short distance or in a certain direction.” (OED)–just like the Hebrew. That sense, however, is marked as “Obsolete” in the OED.
Today, “remove” means to “take (something) away or off from the position occupied” or to “eliminate or get rid of” (NOAD).
However, the Dictionary of Classical Hebrew defines the Hebrew word here (in the tense used, the Hiphil) as follows:
Hi. 6.0.9 Pf. Q הסיג; impf. 2ms תַּסִּיג (תַּסֵּג); ptc. מַסִּיג, מַסִּיגֵי (Q מסגי, משיגי); inf. cstr. הסיג—1a. remove, move back, <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Dt 1914, seducer of wife 4QInstrb 2.46; subj. not specified, Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38. <OBJ> גְּבוּל border Dt 1914 Pr 2228 2310 4QInstrb 2.38 2.46. <COLL> סוג hi. :: גבל set a border Dt 1914.
b. ptc. as noun, one who removes a boundary, <SUBJ> ארר pass. be cursed Dt 2717, דבר pi. speak CD 520, נבא ni. prophesy CD 520, עמד stand CD 520, שׁוב hi. cause to turn CD 520, תעה hi. cause to err CD 520. <CSTR> מַסִּיג גְּבוּל remover of a border Dt 2717, מַסִּיגֵי removers of Ho 510=CD 1915 4QDa 14 CD 520 (הגבול; =4QDa 3.27 גבול) 4Q424 39, משיגי הגב[ו]ל removers of the border 4QDf 12; כול מסיגי all the removers of 4Q424 39. <PREP> לְ of benefit, to, for 4Q424 39; introducing object 4QDa 14; כְּ as, like, + היה be Ho 510=CD 1915.
2. remove, carry away, intrans., <SUBJ> Israel(ites) Mc 614 (or em. תַּסֵּג you shall carry away to תַּשֵּׂג you shall reach, i.e. increase wealth; or em. תִּסָּגֵר you shall be delivered up, i.e. סגר ni.; unless סוג II hi. surround with fence). <COLL> סוג hi. || פלט hi. save Mc 614.
Note that this standard Hebrew lexicon–volume 1 of which was published in 1993–includes the actual English word “remove” in its definition of this word, but, supposedly, the KJV’s “remove” in Proverbs 22:28 is archaic. Has English changed a great deal since 1993, so that this Hebrew dictionary includes this alleged archaism, “remove”? Note as well that more than one of the options in Dr. Ward’s questionnaire would both fit the meaning of the Hebrew word and the English word.
Thus, his survey includes at least this allegedly “archaic” word in the KJV that is not archaic. The word is defined as “remove” in modern times in a modern standard Hebrew lexicon (one that, I might add, is never cited anywhere in Dr. Ward’s quiz–maybe he should have studied the Hebrew text a bit more carefully before producing his test, or at least before publishing it and making claims that are easily shown to be inaccurate.)
I am wondering if it is possible to get more information about who these people are. Are they Baptists? Are they people who believe in justification by works or baptismal regeneration and do not even have the Holy Spirit, as one finds even among various denominational “Baptist” groups if one goes house to house regularly in evangelism? Would they claim to be fundamentalists?
Who these people are is rather important. Dr. Ward said that only 7% of them knew the differences between “thee/thou/thy” as singular in the KJV and “ye/you” as plural. What? Seven percent? Who are these people? In our church the preachers all know, the adults are instructed, the children are instructed, and it is even in Bible study #1 in our evangelistic Bible study series. 93% of those who took his survey did not know this? Are his survey results verifiable, reproducible, and falsifiable–or are they none of the above? Why should we trust them?
Let me note that Mark Ward’s solution to people not knowing the difference between thee/thou/thy and ye/you is not to instruct them in the difference–it is to reject the KJV so that they are reading some modern version where you can NEVER know the difference. Quite a solution, no?
5.) I would be interested if you have done anything to encourage KJVO saints to do something like read KJVs that have the (small number of) archaic words defined in the margin of their Bibles, as do many study Bibles, the Defined KJV, etc.
I would love to find out I am wrong, but I think he has done exactly nothing to encourage saints who are going to cleave to their KJVs to understand them better by having them read editions of the Authorized Version where the archaic words are defined in the margin. I will applaud Dr. Ward when he donates the profits from his book against exclusive use of the KJV to purchasing copies of works that define its archaic words, such as David Cloud’s Believer’s Bible Dictionary, and donating those books to KJVO Christians. But I am not holding my breath.
If not, could you explain why you believe such a solution to your “false friends” idea is insufficient, and why what needs to be done is to replace the KJV with a multiplicity of modern versions that do things like take “hell” out of the Old Testament and replace it with that easy to understand and commonly used word “Sheol,” or attack the classical doctrine of the Trinity by changing the Son from being “only begotten” to being “unique,” or change the Son’s going forth from the Father in His eternal generation from being “from everlasting” to the Arian “from ancient days,” and so on, that would be appreciated. If you do not appreciate such changes in modern versions, I am wondering if you have any written sources or videos warning about them.
I am aware of exactly nothing written or taught by Dr. Ward warning about any of these serious corruptions–really evil “false friends”–in many modern Bible versions. Nor am I aware of Dr. Ward ever explaining why such a solution is more than sufficient to deal with the small number of KJV archaisms–just like there was not one word of criticism of Dr. James White’s inaccurate claims, the ones I was actually dealing with, in my video “Is the King James Version (KJV) Too Hard to Understand? James White / Thomas Ross Debate Review 11.” Only KJVO people deserve criticism, it appears.
I at least would rather have a Bible that teaches Athanasian Trinitarianism but uses “conversation” in an older sense meaning “conduct” than a Bible that has a nice new “conduct” translation but undermines the holy Trinity in some verses (while, thankfully, still supporting it in others).
Wouldn’t you?
Also, please feel free to get in touch with me if you ever change your mind about being willing to publicly dialogue or debate on this matter.
I have offered to debate him multiple times and he has refused. Could it be that his position is not defensible in open debate? Could it be that his whole case would fall apart if he had to do what Christ and the Apostles did in the Gospels and Acts, namely, debate and refute their opponents face-to-face?
I happen to think there would be more profit from a face-to-face encounter where we both have equal time to present our case than there is in your producing videos on your YouTube channel that are mainly preaching to your choir while I do the same on my KJB1611 channel with videos that will mainly be watched by people who are already convinced of the perfect preservation of Scripture. Finally, thank you for complementing me as being “super intelligent.” That was very kind of you. The “very dangerous” part, maybe not so much, but I suppose we can’t have everything. I am not planning to respond to any comments here, as I am not convinced that YouTube comments are the best place to engage in scholarly discussion, but I will look forward to hearing from you if you are able to answer my questions. Thanks again, Thomas
Dr. Ward did respond to my comment as follows:
Ross has said he won’t reply here. So I’ll reply to just two items for the sake of my viewers. (No reply on nos. 1, 2, and 5.)
Why do you think he does not want to answer questions #1, 2, and 5? It isn’t because I won’t reply on his YouTube channel in the comment section. Doesn’t he want me to have the best and most accurate information for when I actually respond to him, God willing? Surely it is not because he does not have a good answer to those questions. Right?
3. I mentioned in the video that I was offering my thoughts as a reader of the Greek New Testament; I self-consciously chose not to cite authorities here.
Does he cite authorities somewhere else, then? Where? Anywhere? I thought it was interesting that after I asked this question in part 2 of his three part series, in part 3 he mentioned that he had started reading a book on Hebrew discourse analysis. Great, good for him. He never said a word about my actual question–how much of the Hebrew Old Testament itself, and Greek New Testament itself, has he actually read?
4. All of the information I am able to release publicly about the participants in the study is available at kjbstudyproject.com, on the Demographic Data page that is linked in the main navigational menu. I refer interested viewers there.
The demographic data seems to indicate that the people who took his survey were not Mormons or Oneness Pentecostals, if the people who took the survey told the truth. So that is useful, and I appreciate that he pointed that out. But there is still something very wonky with his survey results. And, of course, we have no way of verifying, corroborating, or falsifying that whatever people said in the survey is actually the truth. Dr. Ward claimed his survey was “definitive,” when it is incredibly far from anything of the kind. But I do appreciate him pointing to that “Demographic Data” page, even though I wish he had taken the time to make sure that words like “remove” are actually archaic by spending just a bit longer looking at standard Hebrew lexica before putting his survey out.
Let me end this blog post by reiterating that, while his attempt to deal with my Biblically-based case for the English of the KJV is solely reactive, in that he never thought of actually seeing what God’s objective standard is for Bible translation by looking at the language level in Scripture until I brought this to his attention, by the grace of God, I am thankful if his videos at least get people to start to thinking that way.
Also, again, this is by no means a comprehensive response to his three videos or to his book–just a few thoughts to whet your appetite.
Finally, let me point out that this exchange illustrates why those who believe in the perfect preservation of Scripture and the Authorized, King James Version should learn the Biblical languages, especially if they are spiritual leaders. The large holes in his argument are much more easily visible if one knows Hebrew and Greek.
–TDR
Is the King James Version Too Hard to Understand? (White 11)
The James White / Thomas Ross Preservation / King James Version Only debate examined the topic:
“The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
In our debate, James White claimed that the Authorized, King James Version was too hard to understand. He also made this claim in his book The King James Only Controversy. Dr. James White’s argument has been employed by others as well, such as the Bob Jones University graduate Mark Ward. In my eleventh review video of the James White / Thomas Ross debate, I examine the KJV’s “Translators to the Reader” and point out that Dr. White confuses the KJV preface’s claim that their version would be understood by the common man with White’s own claim that the Bible must be in the language of the common man. To my knowledge, James White never acknowledges this important distinction.
The King James Version is Modern English
I also point out that the King James Bible is not in Old English, nor in Middle English, but in Modern English, and that scholars of the English language have dated the rise of modern English from the translation of the KJV:
Old English or Anglo-Saxon -1100
Transition Old English, or “Semi-Saxon” 1100-1200
Early Middle English, or “Early English” 1200-1300
Late Middle English 1300-1400
Early Modern English, “Tudor English” 1485-1611
Modern English 1611-onward
The English Of the King James Version
Is Easier than the Hebrew and Greek of the Inspired Old and New Testament
I then deal with the crucial question-which I have not seen addressed elsewhere by opponents of perfect preservation and the Textus Receptus, and which I wish defenders of preservation would address more frequently and with more completeness–of the objective standard of what “too hard” is for a translation, namely, the level of difficulty of the original Hebrew and Greek texts themselves. Is the King James Version harder English than the Hebrew of the Old Testament or the Greek of the New Testament? This crucial question is answered “no!”
The crucial question: Is the English of the King James Version significantly more complex and harder to understand English than the Greek of the New Testament was to the New Testament people of God or the Hebrew of the Old Testament was to Israel? The answer: No! The New Testament contains challenging Greek (Hebrews, Luke, Acts) as well as simple Greek (John, 1-3 John). Sometimes the New Testament contains really long sentences, such as Ephesians 1:3-14, which is all just one sentence in Greek. The Holy Ghost did not just dictate very short Greek sentences like “Jesus wept” (John 11:35) but also very long sentences, like Ephesians 1:3-14. God did not believe such sentences were too hard to understand, and both God and the Apostle Paul were happy for inspired epistles with such complex syntax to be sent to churches like that at Ephesus–congregations that were filled, not with highbrow urban elites, but with slaves, with poorly educated day laborers, with farmers, and with simple peasants who had believed on the Lord Jesus Christ.
Similarly, parts of the Hebrew prophetic and poetical books are much more challenging Hebrew than are many of the narrative sections of the Hebrew Bible. The Old Testament also contains some very long sentences. The whole chapter, Proverbs 2, is one sentence in Hebrew, for example.
There are also more rare or hard-to-recall words in the original language texts than there are in the English of the KJV.
Thus, evaluated by the objective standard of the literary level of the inspired Hebrew and Greek texts of Scripture, the King James Version is NOT too hard to understand. If you encounter people who argue that the KJV is too hard to understand, I would encourage you to challenge them to consider whether their claim is true based on the linguistic level of the original language texts of the Old and New Testaments.
Learn more by watching debate review video #11 at faithsaves.net, or watch the debate review on YouTube or Rumble, or use the embedded link below:
Please also check out the previous debate review blog posts here at What is Truth?
–TDR
James White / Thomas Ross debate format: King James Version vs. LSB
I am looking forward to my upcoming debate with Dr. James White. Please note the planned format below for the debate. Thank you very much for your fervent prayers and possible fasting for me and for the debate.
Debate Topic: “The Legacy Standard Bible, as a representative of modern English translations based upon the UBS/NA text, is superior to the KJV, as a representative of TR-based Bible translations.”
Affirm: James White
Deny: Thomas Ross
How the time will go:
Brief introduction to the speakers and an explanation of the character of the debate.
Opening presentation: 25/25
Second presentation/rebuttal: 12/12
Cross-examination #1: 10/10
Cross-examination #2: 10/10
Third presentation/rebuttal: 8/8
Concluding statement: 5/5
Very short break to gather any additional questions from the audience
Questions from audience the rest of the time.
For more information, see the James White / Thomas Ross debate page here.
Editions of the King James Version and the Criticism of Not Updating It
I’m sure someone has made this argument, even though I haven’t heard it. Someone might call the five previous editions of the King James Version an argument for another update. Four editions followed the original 1611. Why no sixth edition? Why did we stop at 1769, the date of the last edition, what is called the Blayney Edition?Benjamin Blayney, English Hebraist, updated the King James Version. Dot Wordsworth in The Spectator wrote (based on his reading of Gordon Campbell’s Bible: The Story of the King James Version):
Dr Blayney made thousands of changes to the text of 1611. In vocabulary he incorporated amendments from another version from 1743, for example, fourscore changed to eightieth, neesed to sneezed, and the archaic crudled to curdled. In grammar he changed, among other things, number, so that ‘the names of other gods’ became ‘the name of other gods’; and tenses, so ‘he calleth unto him the twelve and began’ changed to ‘he called unto him the twelve, and began’. There were changes in spelling, in punctuation, and in the choice of words to italicise (which had been intended to indicate words not literally present in the original languages).
By the mid-18th century the wide variation in the various modernized printed texts of the Authorized Version, combined with the notorious accumulation of misprints, had reached the proportion of a scandal, and the Universities of Oxford and Cambridge both sought to produce an updated standard text. First of the two was the Cambridge edition of 1760, the culmination of 20 years’ work by Francis Sawyer Parris, who died in May of that year. This 1760 edition was reprinted without change in 1762 and in John Baskerville’s fine folio edition of 1763. This was effectively superseded by the 1769 Oxford edition, edited by Benjamin Blayney, though with comparatively few changes from Parris’s edition; but which became the Oxford standard text, and is reproduced almost unchanged in most current printings. Parris and Blayney sought consistently to remove those elements of the 1611 and subsequent editions that they believed were due to the vagaries of printers, while incorporating most of the revised readings of the Cambridge editions of 1629 and 1638, and each also introducing a few improved readings of their own. They undertook the mammoth task of standardizing the wide variation in punctuation and spelling of the original, making many thousands of minor changes to the text. In addition, Blayney and Parris thoroughly revised and greatly extended the italicization of “supplied” words not found in the original languages by cross-checking against the presumed source texts. . . . Altogether, the standardization of spelling and punctuation caused Blayney’s 1769 text to differ from the 1611 text in around 24,000 places.
[1611] 1. Though I speake with the tongues of men & of Angels, and haue not charity, I am become as sounding brasse or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I haue the gift of prophesie, and vnderstand all mysteries and all knowledge: and though I haue all faith, so that I could remooue mountaines, and haue no charitie, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestowe all my goods to feede the poore, and though I giue my body to bee burned, and haue not charitie, it profiteth me nothing.[1769] 1. Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. 2 And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. 3 And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing.
[NASV] 1 If I speak in the tongues of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast, but do not have love, I gain nothing.
WHY NOT FURTHER UPDATES TO THE KING JAMES VERSION?
1. The 1769 Blayney Edition Is Good
2. Change Is Worse Than Possible Improvements
3. King James Version Churches Don’t Want the Update
4. An Update Is Far From a Priority
TO BE AN UPDATE, WHAT WOULD NEED TO HAPPEN?
1. King James Version Churches Would Want an Update
2. King James Version Churches Would Unify For an Update
3. King James Version Churches Would Provide the Good, Qualified Men from their Midst, Who Could Work Together to Accomplish an Update
4. King James Version Churches Would Approve of the Update
5. The Updated King James Version Would Become the King James Version for King James Version Churches
The King James Version and Old Testament Punctuation
The King James Bible has periods at the end of practically every verse. It also contains other punctuation marks, such as colons and commas, within verses. Does this English punctuation relate to anything in the Biblical text? The answer is “yes.”
The Old Testament accent marks, which there are strong reasons to believe are just as inspired as the Hebrew consonants and vowels, based on the statement of Christ in Matthew 5:18, among many other reasons, specify pauses or indicate disjunction in the text. In fact, God inspired a more detailed and specific system of punctuation in the original world language, Hebrew, the language in which He revealed 75% of His inspired Word, than the punctuation system of English. Every inspired word in the Old Testament has an accent revealing one of several levels of disjunction or an accent indicating conjunction, that words are to be read with a pause between them (disjunction) or connected (conjunction).
Consider, for example, Exodus 3:14-15. The bold “D” indicates a disjunctive accent in the Hebrew text, that is, a pause. There are levels of strength in the Hebrew accents–D1 is a stronger accent than D2, which is stronger than D3, and so on. (There are level 4, D4, very weak disjunctive Hebrew accents, and there are also conjunctive accents–every word has an accent–but I have not included the D4 very weak disjunctives, nor the conjunctive accents, below.)
וַיֹּ֤אמֶר אֱלֹהִים֙ אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֔ה אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה אֲשֶׁ֣ר אֶֽהְיֶ֑ה וַיֹּ֗אמֶר כֹּ֤ה תֹאמַר֙ לִבְנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵ֔ל אֶֽהְיֶ֖ה שְׁלָחַ֥נִי אֲלֵיכֶֽם׃
וַיֹּאמֶר֩ ע֨וֹד אֱלֹהִ֜ים אֶל־מֹשֶׁ֗ה כֹּֽה־תֹאמַר֮ אֶל־בְּנֵ֣י יִשְׂרָאֵל֒ יְהוָ֞ה אֱלֹהֵ֣י אֲבֹתֵיכֶ֗ם אֱלֹהֵ֨י אַבְרָהָ֜ם אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִצְחָ֛ק וֵאלֹהֵ֥י יַעֲקֹ֖ב שְׁלָחַ֣נִי אֲלֵיכֶ֑ם זֶה־שְּׁמִ֣י לְעֹלָ֔ם וְזֶ֥ה זִכְרִ֖י לְדֹ֥ר דֹּֽר׃
14 And God said unto Moses, D2 I AM D2 THAT I AM: D1 and he said, D3 Thus shalt thou say D3 unto the children of Israel, D2 I AM D2 hath sent me unto you. D1 15 And God said moreover unto Moses, D3 Thus shalt thou say D3 unto the children of Israel, D2 The LORD God of your fathers, D3 the God of Abraham, D3 the God of Isaac, D3 and the God of Jacob, D2 hath sent me unto you: D1 this is my name for ever, D2 and this is my memorial D2 unto all generations. D1
Note that the strongest disjunctive accents / pausal accents correspond to the periods in the English punctuation or to colons (and the accent on the colon is less strong than the one for the period). Note the correspondence of the weaker disjunctive D2 and D3 accents to commas in the English text and other places of natural pause. (There are reasons why some accents at levels D1-4 are stronger at times and weaker at times, but that is a discussion too complicated for this blog post.)
When the King James Bible was translated the inspiration of the Hebrew vowels and accent marks was generally accepted, unlike in modern times, when the Hebrew accents are generally viewed as an uninspired addition to the text, and one can take several years of Hebrew in evangelical or even fundamentalist seminaries and not even know how the Hebrew accent system works.
The fact that the Authorized, King James Version takes the Hebrew accents seriously is another way in which the KJV is superior to modern English versions. Furthermore, since the Hebrew text indicates pauses, when one is engaged in public reading of Scripture in the churches of Christ, one should take the punctuation seriously. Do not rush through the reading of Scripture. Pause where the KJV has a period. Pause where it has a colon. Pause for a slightly shorter time for a comma. Let the inspired words of God be read with reverence, solemnity, and care–read them for what they are, pausing over the punctuation just like Moses and the other Old Testament authors intended when the Holy Ghost dictated the Hebrew text– consonants, vowels, and accents–through the human penmen of Scripture.
May I also suggest that if you are going to learn Hebrew, you learn it from a source that takes the inspiration and preservation of the Hebrew vowels and accents seriously, and so makes sure that students learn the accent system, rather than being deprived of understanding this important aspect of the syntax God’s Word? What would you think of an English teacher that never taught his students what commas and periods are?
(Don’t you want to know whether someone is saying “Let’s eat Grandma” or “Let’s eat, Grandma!”) Shouldn’t students of Hebrew know the same sorts of things in the the Old Testament?
By the way, if you studied Hebrew but were never taught the Hebrew accents/punctuation, the resources below are a good place to start. I would read Futato first and then Fuller & Choi.
Basics of Hebrew Accents, Mark D. Futato
Learning the Hebrew accents will help you in your studying, preaching, and teaching of the jots and tittles of God’s infallible Word.
–TDR
The Amazon links are affiliate links, but I would recommend these works whether they were affiliate links or not.
Does the New King James Version Deviate from the Textus Receptus, the Text Behind the King James Version?
Mark Ward is being very, very nice. He’s not calling King James Version supporters liars, who say that the New King James Version follows the critical text in certain places. To be a liar, you have to know you’re wrong. These men don’t know, so they haven’t perjured themselves. He writes a paragraph espousing his own personal niceness for not calling these men liars, who are merely ignorant. He has never seen a list of places where the New King James Version deviates from the same text as the King James Version, so he was willing to make the claim that it isn’t true that there was a list and with a long blog post.
I wrote a comment under his post, showing him instances where he is false, that is, producing a list, albeit not a complete one, but a satisfactory one to make that claim (as of this writing, he’s published another comment, who “quotes me”–not actual quote of me–and did not publish two comments, where I sent just a list). I hope he publishes it. He’s very, very nice, and this is important to him, as he very often categorizes King James supporters by whether they are nice or whether they aren’t nice. I’m assuming I’m not nice. Some people online think they are the niceness pope and can come down with a condemnatory judgment of “not nice.” If something is unbiblical and you don’t like it, and you act like you don’t like it, you might not be nice. God wasn’t “nice” at the flood, the tower of babel, and at many other times. But today, you’ve still got to be nice, which seems to be more important with many than being biblical. Plenty of critical text people are not nice, and I could produce an all star list of them, which would mean what?
I want to inform you that for sure I would never take a position that the New King James Version differs than the King James Version in its underlying text, unless I could see those differences with my own eyes. I wouldn’t just make a claim. I would have to see it myself. Who would even do that? I would like to know the name of a person who would make that unsubstantiated claim. Produce the list! Ward makes the claim that there is no list of verses that changed based upon a different underlying text, because he’s searched a lot and hasn’t found it. I’m going to have to believe that he really searched. One way to search is to look yourself at the Greek New Testament or read the New King James Version along side the King James Version. I haven’t done a thorough search in my opinion, but I have found several examples to support the claim.
The first list I ever saw was sent to me, and I reprinted that list. Before seeing that list, I myself just assumed that the NKJV came from the same text as the KJV. Once I saw it with my own eyes, I changed on that. I’m going to give you several examples just so that you can have that at your finger tips. I don’t think the critical text critics of the KJV even care. I’ve already written about it, and it’s just a tool to use for them. They don’t even retract their previous statements.
KJV users have the NKJV and we don’t use it, which shows how ridiculous we are, because “it comes from the same text” (but it doesn’t), so it isn’t a textual issue. But it is a textual issue. Even then, move along. Doesn’t matter anyway. That’s what I’m saying. They don’t care. It’s just a tool, when no longer useful, it is meaningless. I’ve never seen an apology once it was revealed that they have been lying. Yes, I’m saying they’re lying, because they are too smart to not know this. You can see that you are translating from a different word. You know you are changing the text when you do it.
Mark said he really searched for a list. I took the list I had, and then I started looking some more, and my list grew, so I’m assuming there are many more examples than what I’m producing here. My gut says that the best answer to this list is that the deviations are minor. The changes are not minor, because they are still a lie. They don’t respect that words were changed, indicating that the very words in the end are not an issue.
I know now I could make a longer list than what I’m going to produce, especially since I didn’t look much into the Old Testament, but here is a mainly New Testament list (since we’re focusing on the TR):
Matthew 22:10, the critical has “hous” (“whom”) and the TR has hosous (“as many as”) and the NKJV follows the critical text with “whom.”
Luke 1:35, the NKJV follows the critical text in leaving out “ek sou” (“of thee”) unlike the KJV.
Luke 5:7, the TR has “tois” (“which”) and the critical text doesn’t have that word, and the NKJV follows the critical text, while the KJV does not.
Luke 6:9, the TR has a plural “sabbasin” and the critical text has a singular “sabbato” and the KJV is plural, Sabbath days, and the NKJV is singular “the Sabbath.”
John 10:12, the critical text leaves out the last word, “probata,” sheep, and the NKJV follows that, while the KJV follows the TR, which has that word, “probata,” sheep.
John 19:10, the critical text leaves out a second “echo” (“have”) and the NKJV follows that, not the TR, differing than the KJV.
Acts 15:23, the NKJV follows the critical text in omitting “tade”, or “after this manner”.
Acts 17:14, the NKJV omits “as it were” (“ws” in the Greek) and thus once again follows the critical text.
Acts 19:9, the NKJV follows the critical text in omitting “tinos,” so it effects the translation in leaving out the word “one,” as in “one Tyrannus.”
Acts 19:39, the the NKJV follows the critical text in “peraiterw” instead of “peri eterwn”, subtle but different.
Romans 14:9, the critical text leaves out the first “kai,” which is translated “both” in the KJV and left out in the NKJV, following the critical text.
Colossians 3:17, the critical text leaves out another “kai,” which the NKJV follows instead of the TR, which keeps the “kai,” which changes the translation, from “God and Father” to “God the Father.”
Jude 1:3, the NKJV leaves out “our” (“hemon”) following the critical text.
Jude 1:19, the critical text omits eautou (“themselves”), as does the NKJV.
Isaiah 9:3, the NKJV changes the Hebrew text behind the KJV by leaving out the “not” (“lo”) with OT textual criticism, the difference being that joy is increased instead of not being increased.
Edit: This list will be given an edit based on some critique at a post, which answers this post. I will return and give a link to this post that will give the edits.
Recent Comments