Is The King James Version The Inerrant Word of God?

The article below was written by Greg Hartmann.
IS THE KING JAMES VERSION THE INERRANT WORD OF GOD?
1) ORAL TRANSMISSION OF GOD'S REVELATION TO MAN
We have no particular physical evidence that God provided anything in writing from the time of Adam & Eve to the time of Moses of what God communicated to mankind. Yet it is evident from what we do have in writing afterwards, that what God did communicate to mankind during all those years He held man accountable for - evidence that His words were to be sovereignly preserved some how, perhaps orally.
There is also evidence of man accurately communicating what God has said orally - thus preserving His Words from one generation to another in that way in all the languages of the world. This accomplished of necessity considering that for ages most men did not have reading or writing skills - but apparently had extraordinary memories compared to today.
2) THE WORD OF GOD AS IT WAS INSPIRED AND ORIGINALLY WRITTEN
What God did inspire men to write was written in particular languages utilizing the normative rules of the language of the times within which the writing was done.
God, being Who He is, the conclusion is made that what He did inspire the authors to originally write down was inerrant.
Under God's sovereignty, copies of the original words that He inspired and translations into other languages have not been absolutely uniform throughout the ages for all mankind - indicating an imperfect tranmission to mankind of what God has said.
Yet God indicates in His Word that He would preserve every character of His Word. But there is not stipulated in His Word the specific manner in which He would preserve it.
CONCLUSION
Since man has largely had available to him through the ages imperfect copies and translations of what God originally inspired to be written and imperfect fellow man to communicate what God has said, and since the only skills men have had available to them with which to interpret God's Word in common are normative language skills in their particular language(s), and since each man is individually held accountable for what God has inspired to be originallywritten, then God's Word has been made available to all men via imperfect copies and translations of His Word to be interpreted through imperfect men via normative rules of each individual's particular language(s).
Furthermore, no man is absolutely trustworthy nor a perfect interpreter of God's Word. So man cannot be trusted to declare as inerrant or interpret any particular version - even if it were to be inerrant. It is up to each individual to verify what God has said himself..
3) THE REPUTATION OF THE AUTHORS OF ANY VERSION CANNOT BE OBJECTIVELY EVALUATED IN DETERMINING THE RELIABITY OF ANY TRANSLATION
One is compelled to overlook any comments on the theology or lifestyle of any translator for a logical reason - that throughout history God has used all kinds of men to relay His message including words that are reported in the bible from the most faithful at times to the most unfaithful - believers and unbelievers. Therefore one has no objective way to judge a particular group of men as to their godliness and how that would or would not affect the outcome of their work. All one has to go by is the work itself: the manuscript evidence and the translation and the reasons if any for the rendering.
B) THE KJV IS AN EXCELLENT TRANSLATION, BUT NOT THE ONLY EXCELLENT TRANSLATION
Foremost, we feel that the KJV is an EXCELLENT translation, but not the ONLY excellent translation.
C) WHAT WE HAVE REGARDING WHICH TRANSLATION TO USE IS 99.5+% AGREEMENT AND A DISPUTE CONCERNING LESS THAN ONE-HALF OF ONE % OF THE BIBLE
In over 90 percent of the New Testament, readings are identical word-for-word, regardless of the family. Of the remaining ten percent, MOST of the differences between the texts are fairly irrelevant, such as calling the Lord "Christ Jesus" instead of "Jesus Christ," or putting the word "the" before a noun. Less than two percent would significantly alter the meaning of a passage, and none of them would contradict or alter any of the basic points of Christian doctrine. What we have, then, is a dispute concerning less than one-half of one percent of the Bible. The other 99.5% we all agree on!
D) THE LARGE AMOUNT OF EVIDENCE HAS REVEALED ONLY ABOUT 50 SIGNIFICANT VARIATIONS, NONE OF WHICH EFFECT ANY DOCTRINE
Because there are over 14,000 manuscript copies of the New Testament we can absolutely be confident of its accuracy. With this large number of manuscripts, comparing manuscripts easily reveals any place where a scribe has made an error or where there is a variation. There are approximately 150,000 variations in the manuscripts we have today. However, these variations represent only 10,000 places in the New Testament (if the same word was misspelled in 3,000 manuscripts, that is counted as 3,000 variations.) Of these 10,000 places, all but 400 are questions of spelling in accord with accepted usage, grammatical construction, or order of words. Of the remaining variations, only 50 are of significance (such as two manuscripts leaving out Acts 2:37). But of these 50, not one alters even one article of faith which cannot be abundantly sustained by other undoubted passages. There are some manuscripts that date as early as 130 AD, very close to the completion of the New Testament. These manuscripts are nearly identical to those dating 900 years later, thus verifying the accuracy of the scribes."
II) PARTICULAR POINTS WHICH INDICATE DISCREPANCIES IN THE KJV TRANSLATION
[Detroit Baptist Seminary Journal, DBSJ 4 (Fall 1999): 151–64, ERRORS IN THE KING JAMES VERSION? by William W. Combs http://www.dbts.edu/media/journals/1999/Combs.pdf]
A) [Isa 13:15] "In Isaiah 13:15 the KJV reads "joined" ("every one that is joined unto them shall fall by the sword"). There is no support for this reading in any Hebrew manuscript, text, ancient version, or rabbinic tradition. Instead, the correct reading is "captured" ("anyone who is captured will fall by the sword," NASB). Possibly, the KJV translators misread one Hebrew letter for another, mistaking the word såpåh (hps), "capture," for såpa. (jps), "join." Whatever the case, the reading of the KJV is not the reading of the autographs and is thus an indisputable error."
B) [Rev 17:8] "In Revelation 17:8 the KJV reads: The beast that thou sawest was, and is not; and shall ascend out of the bottomless pit, and go into perdition: and they that dwell on the earth shall wonder, whose names were not written in the book of life from the foundation of the world, when they behold the beast that was, and is not, and yet is. The final words in the verse, "and yet is," should actually read "and shall come"—"the beast that was, and is not, and shall come." No Greek manuscript reads "and yet is"; all have "and shall come." This error, and a few others, derive from the circumstances surrounding the production of Eramsus’ Greek NT (1516). For the book of Revelation, Erasmus had access to only one manuscript (1 r ). However, this was not really a separate manuscript of the text of Revelation but was actually imbedded in a commentary on Revelation by Andreas of Caesarea. As such it was difficult for the printer to read the text itself, so Erasmus had a fresh copy of the text made. The copyist himself misread the original at places, and thus a number of errors were introduced into Erasmus’ printed text. In Rev 17:8 the copyist mistakenly wrote kaivper estin ("and yet is") instead of kai; parevstai ("and shall come"). This is an indisputable error in the KJV and the Greek text (TR) that underlies it. Interestingly, Ed-ward F. Hills, who was one of the leading exponents of the KJV, admitted that this is an error. He observes: "Admittedly the King James Version is not ideally perfect. No translation ever can be. But it is the product of such God-guided scholarship that it is practically perfect. Its errors are few and very minor."
C) [Rev 16:5] "Another error is found in Revelation 16:5, where the KJV reads: And I heard the angel of the waters say, Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, and shalt be, because thou hast judged thus. The words "shalt be," should actually read "holy one"—"Thou art righteous, O Lord, which art, and wast, the holy one…." This error came into the KJV because, as we noted earlier, the translators mainly used Beza’s Greek NT (1598). Beza simply speculated (guessed), without any evidence whatsoever, that the correct reading was "shall be" (ejsovmeno") instead of "holy one" (osio"). All previous editions of the TR (i.e., Erasmus, Stephanus) and all previous English Bibles (i.e., Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew’s Bible, Great Bible, Geneva Bible, Bish-ops’ Bible) read "holy one" (osio"). There is no manuscript evidence whatsoever for the KJV’s "shalt be." It is an indisputable error. Again, Hills admits this error."
D) [Ro 7:6] "Another error, which comes from Beza, is found in Romans 7:6. The KJV reads: But now we are delivered from the law, that being dead wherein we were held; that we should serve in newness of spirit, and not in the oldness of the letter. In the KJV the phrase "that being dead" (genitive ajpoqanovto") refers to "the law" (genitive novmou). There is no manuscript evidence whatsoever for the phrase "that being dead" to modify "the law." Instead, the reading of all Greek manuscripts has "that being dead" (nominative ajpoqanovnte") modifying "we" ("we are delivered," kathrghvqhmen). Thus, Paul is not saying that the law is dead but that we died to law—"we being dead wherein we were held are delivered from the law." Here is another indisputable error, one that is also conceded by Hills.
E) [Acts 9:6] "Another textual error is found in Acts 9:6, where the KJV reads: And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him, Arise, and go into the city, and it shall be told thee what thou must do. The words "And he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? And the Lord said unto him" (trevmwn te kai; qambw'n eipe, kurie, ti me qelei" poihsai… kai; o kurio" pro;" auton) are not found in any Greek manuscript. They are found in the KJV because they were inserted by Erasmus into his Greek NT (1516), which became the basis for future editions of the TR like the one used by translators of the KJV. Erasmus frankly admitted that he took the words from the parallel passage in Acts 26:14 and inserted them at this point in the Greek text. He did so because they are in the Latin Vulgate at Acts 9:6, and he thought his Greek manuscripts were defective at this point. Unfortunately, Erasmus was wrong. These words have no Greek manuscript support whatsoever, and thus constitute an indisputable error in the KJV."
F) [Heb 10:23] "Probably the most indisputable translation error in the KJV is found Hebrews 10:23, Let us hold fast the profession of our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that promised;) The phrase "profession of our faith" should be "profession of our hope." Everyone concedes that the actual Greek word is hope ("elpi"), not faith ("pisti"); hope is found in all manuscripts and all editions of the TR. Hope and faith are two entirely different words, so one cannot sincerely argue that the translators simply decided on "faith" as the correct trans-lation at this point. Besides, the Greek word for hope ("elpi") is used 52 others times in the NT and in every case the translators of the KJV ren-dered it "hope," not "faith." How this error slipped past the translators is unclear; nevertheless, it is an indisputable error in the KJV."
G) [Acts 19:37] "Another problem is found in Acts 19:37, where the KJV says: For ye have brought hither these men, which are neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess. The word translated "robbers of churches" should be "robbers of temples." The Greek word, which is found in all manuscripts and all editions of the TR, describes someone who robs temples (ierovsulo"), not churches. In the context of Acts 19, Paul and his companions at Ephesus find themselves in the midst of a riot instigated by Demetrius (v. 24) and his fellow silvermiths, who are upset that Paul’s preaching against idolatry will diminish their profits from the "silver shrines for Diana" (v. 24) they sell for a living. In trying to quiet the riot, the "townclerk" (v. 35) argues that Demetrius and his friends have no basis for the commotion they are causing since the two Christians they have detained, Gaius and Aristarchus (v. 29), are "neither robbers of churches, nor yet blasphemers of your goddess." The townclerk’s point is that these men must be released since they have obviously not robbed the temple of Diana; besides, there were no church buildings to rob in Ephesus. "Robbers of churches" is simply an erroneous translation.
H) [Acts 12:4] Another clear example is found in Acts 12:4, And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people. Again, no one questions that the word translated "Easter" is actually "Passover" (pavsca) since it is found in all manuscripts and all editions of the TR. It is used 28 other times in the NT, and in every other in-stance the translators of the KJV rendered it "Passover." In the context of Acts 12, Herod has just put James to death (v. 2), and when he saw that it "pleased the Jews," he proceeded to arrest Peter and kill him also (v. 3). However, because this happened during the Passover season, Herod decided to hold him in prison since he did not wish to pollute the Jewish feast. All of this has nothing to do with Easter, the Christian celebration of Christ’s resurrection. We are told that "the term Easter was derived from the Anglo-Saxon ‘Eostre,’ the name of the goddess of spring. In her honor sacrifices were offered at the time of the vernal equinox. By the 8th cent. the term came to be applied to the anniversary of Christ’s resurrection." "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is an erroneous translation.
I) [Ex 20:14] "A 1631 edition omitted the word 'not' from the seventh commandment (Exod 20:14), yielding 'Thou shalt commit adultery.'For this error the king’s printers were fined £300 and the offending edition was commonly known as the 'Wicked Bible.' "
J) [Mk 7:27] "A 1795 Oxford edition became known as the 'Murderer’s Bible' because Mark 7:27 read 'Let the children first be killed,' instead of 'filled.' "
K) [Jn 3:16 KJV]: "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in Him should not perish, but have everlasting life."
"only begotten" - "monogenous". The Greek word "monogenous" is translated "only begotten" in the KJV. However it should be rendered "only" or "unique" and not "only begotten". Monogenous consists of the Greek prefix "mono" -"one" and the Greek verb = "genous" -"One Who is". So "monogenous"-"the only One Who is: The Greek verb form "genous", which is part of the word "monogenous" is derrived from the main Greek verb, (the infinitive), "ginomai" which means TO CAUSE TO BE. Notice: only one "n" occurs in the verb "ginomai" and only one "n" occurs in the form of this verb which the Apostle John uses in this verse: "genous".
"genous" is NOT derrived from the Greek verb "gennao" - to procreate, beget. Notice the two "n""s in this verb. This will help to distinguish between these two different words in the Greek. One verb, meaning to cause to be, (unique), has one "n" and the other, meaning to beget has two. So the word "monogenous" means "the only One Who is" or "the unique One" Further support for this corrected translation is found in Hebrews 11:17: 1) [Heb 11:17]:  "By faith Abraham, when God tested Him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had received the promises was about to sacrifice his ONE AND ONLY son...."
"MONOGENO" This is the same verb used in John 3:16. Isaac was not Abraham"s only begotten son for Abraham had another son, Ishmael, before Isaac and other sons after Isaac, (Gen 25:1-4). What this passage in Hebrews is saying when it uses the same verb that John uses in Jn 3:16 is that Isaac was Abraham"s one and only - unique - son of the promise of God that through him the nation of Israel would be born. Through Isaac our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ would become flesh, adding humanity to His diety to become the Savior of the world. So this passage in Hebrews 11:17 and the passage in John 3:16 do not refer to the begetting of human offspring but rather refer to the uniqueness of a particular son of Abraham and of the uniqueness of the Son of God.
L) AION = age not world
M) [Heb 2:17]: "Reconciliation" = "elastomai" should be propitiation or appeasment of God"s wrath
N) [Lk 18:13]: "God be merciful" = should be "God be propitiated" ...."toward me a sinner"
The tax gatherer was a Jew who looked forward to God"s wrath being propitiated somehow in the future for his sins.
O) [Ro 16:26] Scriptures of the prophets should be prophetic scriptures. The Greek bible uses the adjective in this verse which is to be rendered "prophetic" and not as rendered in the KJV: the noun "prophets" in order to relay the intended meaning of the author: "those prophetic passages of the N.T. of Paul"s time which were about the mystery of the church now revealed.
P) [Ro 5:18]: King James Version says "Therefore as by the offense of one judgment came upon all men...."
But it should read: "by one offense, judgment came upon all men...."
Q) [Mt 13:39, 40, 49]: The end of the world should be the completion or consummation not a single end point as indicated in the KJV but a period of time.
R) [Ro 8:1] The phrase "...who walk not after the flesh, but after the Spirit" is not in this verse in the earliest and best manuscripts, discovered later than 1611. It violates the doctrine of eternal security indicated at the end of this chapter in Romans and is repeated exactly in verse 4 making it appear a bit redundant.
S) [2 Pet 2:4] Not hell but deepest abyss
T) [Mt 16:18] Not hell but Hades.
U) IMMORTALITY Dr. Robert A. Morey states from his book, "DEATH and the Afterlife", Bethany House Publishers, Minneapolis, Mn, 1984, p. 95-97
"The word "immortality" is found five times in the KJV. The authors of the KJV translated two different Greek words as immortality. They were correct with one word but mistranslated the other.
The first word is "athanasia." This is a combination of two Greek words which literally mean "no death." This word means "never ending existence" or "the state of being incapable of death." It is used to describe the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:43, 53.
The second word is "aphtharsia. This is also a combination of two Greek words which literally mean "no corruption." It means "the state of being incapable of corruption, decomposition, or degeneration." It is used to describe God in Rom. 1:23 and the resurrection body in 1 Cor 15:42, 50, 52-54. The KJV mistranslates it as "immortality" in Tim 1:17 and 1 Tim 1:10.
While "athanasia" reveals that the resurrected saints will never experience death, but exist for all eternity, "aphtharsia" reveals that this will not be a mere eternal existence but the fullest life of joy and satisfaction possible, because the resurrected saints cannot experience any degeneration in the functions of body or mind. No corruption will disrupt the bliss of the eternal state.
From our examination of the terms "immortal" and "incorruptible," it is obvious that they describe the attributes of the resurrection body and do not speak of the condition of man"s soul after death...."
V) The following is from this website:
http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm
1) Were KJV Translators Inspired?  Was the translation process from original languages into English of 1611 A.D. protected from error by direct inspiration of the Holy Spirit? "KJV only" advocates say yes! The Facts say NO!
2) Can you read the original KJV 1611 edition?  [Answer for most people not familiar with words which are foreign to contemporary english: No.]
3) Introductory notes
i.These advocates reject all others Bible"s that post-date the KJV.
ii.They believe that the KJV is not only inspired in the original language, but also in the translation process.
iiiThis claim of an inspired translation process is not made for any other Bible translation.
iv.Only a very tiny fraction of people who use the KJV actually believe that the translation process was inspired by the Holy Spirit.
v.We feel that the KJV is to be classed as one of several major standards of Bible translations including, NASB, RSV, NKJV, ASV, NIV. All these translations are equal in quality and all should be used for Bible study.
vi.The TR itself was based on a very few, late scripts, not one of which contained the entire Greek New Testament and none earlier than the 12th century. In the matter of the book of Revelation, a missing page was translated from the Latin Vulgate BACK to the Greek. Acts 9:6 although found in the Latin Vulgate, and thus the TR is found in no Greek manuscript at all. In light of its obvious shortcomings, a greater number of older and more complete manuscripts were used in the translation of subsequent versions (post-1881) Photo gallery of 1611 edition, KJV marginal variations This photo gallery single handedly refutes any notion that the translators were inspired in their work of translation.
a) Proof #1: that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:
i There are over 8000 alternate English renderings from Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that were identical.
ii The first example (Judges 19:2) below shows a place where the meaning of the Hebrew is obscure. Was it "4 months" or "a year and four months"??? Quite a difference! But the structure of the Hebrew makes it difficult to for any translators to know for sure which it is. So they show the alternate reading, NOT KNOWING THEMSELVES FOR SURE WHICH IS CORRECT!
iii No one questions the Greek and Hebrew is inspired. But if the translators were also inspired by the Holy Spirit, in their work of translating the inspired Hebrew into English, THEY WOULD HAVE BEEN GUIDED BY DIVINE INSPIRATION THE CORRECT RENDERING, hence no need for any alternate readings in the margin.
iv Remember, although we have only shown one example of this first type of marginal reading, there are over 8000 more we have not shown!
v The New American Standard Bible is in the left hand column for reference. Ref: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof
"But his concubine played the harlot against him, and she went away from him to her father’s house in Bethlehem in Judah, and was there for a period of four months." NASB The KJV reading is identical to the NASB
b) Proof #2: that the translators were NOT inspired in their work of translation:
i Everyone agrees that there are minor variations in the copies of the original Greek and Hebrew manuscripts. There errors are typical of types of errors men make when they copy things and make absolutely no doctrinal difference. Jesus promised that "scripture cannot be broken" John 10:36 and Peter said, that the "imperishable ... word of the Lord abides forever" 1 Peter 1:23-25. 2.Now KJV ONLY advocates believe that the translators were directed by the Holy Spirit to make the correct choice between two variations in the Greek or Hebrew text.
ii There are a number of marginal readings that indicate alternate manuscript readings. This is different from two English readings from identical manuscripts.
iii The fact that the translators placed into the margin alternate manuscript readings PROVES BEYOND ANY DOUBT that they WERE NOT GUIDED by the Holy Spirit as to which one of the two readings were correct.
iv ....The KJV ... the translators give alternate manuscript readings.
III) FALSE ARGUMENTS USED TO SUPPORT THE KJV ONLY POINT OF VIEW REFUTED
A) The original KJV in 1611 AD when it first came out had no marginal notes.
1.This is simply blind faith gone to seed!
2.A statement based on wishful thinking without any proof and contrary to all known facts!
3.The very first KJV had marginal notes. TAKE A SECOND LOOK AT THEM!!! [Ref]: http://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm#proof
B) These marginal notes were added by the publishers and did not originate with the inspired translators.
1.As if the publishers would have the knowledge to make such judgements of alternate manuscripts.
2.As if the Translators would have silently allowed the publisher to confuse the readers after the Holy Spirit had told them which reading was authentic.
3.The translators made clear reference to the need of the marginal notes in the original preface 4
C) The original translators preface was not written by or authorized by the translators but was inserted against their wishes by the publishers.
1.As ridiculous as it is unfounded and without proof!
2.The last gasp of a dying false doctrine!
D) The fact is, the marginal readings are NOT THE WORDS OF GOD and the TEXT IS. The translators did not KNOW that they were being guided to translate His word correctly, that much is certain. Just because they wrote in the margins doesn"t mean the text is not accurate!
1.Incredible!!! Imagine this. The KJV translators specifically dispel any notion that they were specially guided by God in the preface, but didn’t know that what they wrote in the preface was wrong. God was inspiring their choices of manuscripts!
2.Unanswerable question: "If the translators died not knowing they were inspired, HOW DID YOU FIND THIS OUT"???
IV) Questions for "KJV only" advocates:
1.Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769.
2.What Bible would these KJV worshippers recommend since before 1611 there was no Bible.
3.Do they realize that the apostle Paul did not use the KJV.
4.Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
5.If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
6.If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why would God not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
7.If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
8.Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
9.If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
10.Why were all the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from "The Translators to the Reader."?
11.When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
12.If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
13.In defending the KJV"s use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an old English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
14.Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their websites, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God"s truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write their defenses of God"s ultimate truth, the Bible?
15.Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn"t? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship"? (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
16.Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century?
17.If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?
18.Why do KJV only advocates believe that the English of the KJV is clearer and more precise than the original Greek language manuscripts? Why should Bible students throw out their Greek dictionaries and buy an "archaic English" dictionary? Are there not word pictures in the original Greek words that the English cannot easily convey? (Jas 2:19 "tremble"; Greek: PHRISSO, indicates to be rough, to bristle. is a powerful word picture of how the demons are in such terror that their skin is rough with goose pimples. Also differences between "agape" and "phileo" love words.)
19.Why did the translators make mistakes in the chapter summaries in the 1611 version? Wouldn"t God have inspired this as well? Why would God inspire the English providentially accurate, but then allow misleading chapter headings? (Every chapter of the Song of Songs is interpreted as descriptive of the church. This is wrong. SoS is God"s "mate selection manual." Also, Isa 22 "He prophesieth Shebna"s deprivation, and Eliakim, prefiguring the kingdom of Christ, his substitution" This is wrong and reflect the incorrect theology of the day.)
20.Why would the translators use book headings like "The Gospel According to Saint Luke" since the Greek merely says "The Gospel According to Luke". Does not this show that the translators were influenced by their contemporary theology and the Catholic false doctrine of "sainthood"?
21.Do KJV only advocates realize that they stand beside the Mormon church in that both groups believe that they were delivered an "inspired translation"? (Mormon"s believe Joseph Smith"s English translation of the Book of Mormon from the Nephi Plates was done under inspiration.) Do KJV only advocates realize that the most powerful and irrefutable evidence that neither were translated under inspiration, is the very first edition with all their thousands of errors? (KJV- 1611 edition; BoM- 1831 edition)
22.Do KJV only advocates realize that, to point out that all modern translations have the same kinds of mistakes we are accusing of the KJV, is irrelevant, because we maintain that all translations have errors and none were translated under the inspired supervision of God?
23.Why would the Holy Spirit mis-guide the translators to employ the use of mythical creatures like "unicorn" for wild ox, "satyr" for "wild goat", "cockatrice" for common viper, when today we know what the real name of these creatures is?
24.If the KJV is error free in the English, then why did they fail to correctly distinguish between "Devil and Demons" (Mt 4:1-DIABOLOS and Jn 13:2-DAIMONIZOMAI) ; "hades and hell" (see Lk 16:23-HADES and Mt 5:22-GEENNA; Note: Hades is distinct from hell because hades is thrown into hell after judgement: Rev 20:14)
25.Why would KJV translators render Gen 15:6 which is quoted in identical Greek form by Paul in Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6, in FOUR DIFFERENT WAYS? Why are they creating distinctions were none exist?
26.Why did the KJV translators have no consistent rule for differentiating between the use of definite and indefinite articles? (Dan 3:25 we have one "like the Son of God" instead of "like a son of God", even though in 28 Nebuchadnezzar states God sent "His angel" to deliver the men. The definite article was also added to the centurion"s confession in Mt 27:54.)
27.How can you accept that the Textus Receptus is perfect and error free when Acts 9:6 is found only in the Latin Vulgate but absolutely no Greek manuscript known to man? Further, how come in Rev 22:19 the phrase "book of life" is used in the KJV when absolutely ALL known Greek manuscripts read "tree of life"?
28.How can we trust the TR to be 100% error free when the second half of 1 Jn 5:8 are found only in the Latin Vulgate and a Greek manuscript probably written in Oxford about 1520 by a Franciscan friar named Froy (or Roy), who took the disputed words from the Latin Vulgate? (we are not disputing the doctrine of the trinity, just the validity of the last half of this verse)
29.How do you explain the grammatical error in the original 1611 KJV in Isa 6:2 where the translators made a rare grammatical error by using the incorrect plural form of "seraphims" rather than "seraphim"?
30.Must we possess a perfectly flawless bible translation in order to call it "the word of God"? If so, how do we know "it" is perfect? If not, why do some "limit" "the word of God" to only ONE "17th Century English" translation? Where was "the word of God" prior to 1611? Did our Pilgrim Fathers have "the word of God" when they brought the GENEVA BIBLE translation with them to North America?
31.Were the KJV translators "liars" for saying that "the very meanest [poorest] translation" is still "the word of God"?
32.Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek used for the KJV are "the word of God"?
33.Do you believe that the Hebrew and Greek underlying the KJV can "correct" the English?
34.Do you believe that the English of the KJV "corrects" its own Hebrew and Greek texts from which it was translated?
35.Is ANY translation "inspired"? Is the KJV an "inspired translation"?
36.Is the KJV "scripture" ? Is IT "given by inspiration of God"? [2 Tim. 3:16]
37. WHEN was the KJV "given by inspiration of God" — 1611, or any of the KJV major/minor revisions in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, and the last one in 1850?
38. In what language did Jesus Christ [not Peter Ruckman and others] teach that the Old Testament would be preserved forever according to Matthew 5:18?
39.Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one seventeenth-century English translation?
40.Did God lose the words of the originals when the "autographs" were destroyed?
41.Did the KJV translators mislead their readers by saying that their New Testament was "translated out of the original Greek"? [title page of KJV N.T.] Were they "liars" for claiming to have "the original Greek" to translate from?
42.Was "the original Greek" lost after 1611?
43.Did the great Protestant Reformation (1517-1603) take place without "the word of God"?
44.What copy or translations of "the word of God," used by the Reformers, was absolutely infallible and inerrant? [their main Bibles are well-known and copies still exist].
45.If the KJV is "God"s infallible and preserved word to the English-speaking people," did the "English-speaking people" have "the word of God" from 1525-1604?
46.Was Tyndale"s [1525], or Coverdale"s [1535], or Matthew"s [1537], or the Great [1539], or the Geneva [1560] . . . English Bible absolutely infallible?
47.If neither the KJV nor any other one version were absolutely inerrant, could a lost sinner still be "born again" by the "incorruptible word of God"? [1 Peter 1:23]
48.If the KJV can "correct" the inspired originals, did the Hebrew and Greek originally "breathed out by God" need correction or improvement?
49.Since most "KJV-Onlyites" believe the KJV is the inerrant and inspired "scripture" [2 Peter 1:20], and 2 Peter 1:21 says that "the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost," would you not therefore reason thus — "For the King James Version came not in 1611 by the will of man: but holy men of God translated as they were moved by the Holy Ghost"?
50.Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "whom ye" [Cambridge KJV"s] or, "whom he" [Oxford KJV"s] at Jeremiah 34:16?
51.Which reading is the verbally (word-for-word) inerrant scripture — "sin" [Cambridge KJV"s] or "sins" [Oxford KJV"s] at 2 Chronicles 33:19?
52.Who publishes the "inerrant KJV"?
53.Since the revisions of the KJV from 1613-1850 made (in addition to changes in punctuation, capitalization, and spelling) many hundreds of changes in words, word order, possessives, singulars for plurals, articles, pronouns, conjunctions, prepositions, entire phrases, and the addition and deletion of words — would you say the KJV was "verbally inerrant" in 1611, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?
54.Would you contend that God waited until a king named "James" sat on the throne of England before perfectly preserving His Word in English, and would you think well of an "Epistle Dedicatory" that praises this king as "most dread Sovereign . . .Your Majesty"s Royal Person . . ." — IF the historical FACT was revealed to you that King James was a practicing homosexual all of his life? [documentation — Antonia Fraser -- "King James VI of Scotland, I of England" Knopf Publ./1975/pgs. 36-37, 123 
Caroline Bingham -- "The Making of a King" Doubleday Publ./1969/pgs. 128-129, 197-198
Otto J. Scott -- "James I" Mason-Charter Publ./1976/pgs. 108, 111, 120, 194, 200, 224, 311, 353, 382
David H. Wilson -- "King James VI & I" Oxford Publ./1956/pgs. 36, 99-101, 336-337, 383-386, 395
plus several encyclopedias] 55.Would you contend that the KJV translator, Richard Thomson, who worked on Genesis-Kings in the Westminster group, was "led by God in translating" even though he was an alcoholic that "drank his fill daily" throughout the work? [Gustavus S. Paine -- "The Men Behind the KJV" Baker Book House/1979/pgs. 40, 69]
56.Is it possible that the rendition "gay clothing," in the KJV at James 2: 3, could give the wrong impression to the modern-English KJV reader?
57.Did dead people "wake up" in the morning according to Isaiah 37:36 in the KJV?
58.Was "Baptist" John"s last name according to Matthew 14: 8 and Luke 7:20 in the KJV?
59.Is 2 Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV understood or make any sense to the modern-English KJV reader? — "O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged." As clearly understood from the New International Version [NIV] — "We have spoken freely to you, Corinthians, and opened wide our hearts to you. We are not withholding our affection from you, but you are withholding yours from us. As a fair exchange — I speak as to my children — open wide your hearts also."
60.Does the singular "oath"s," occurring in every KJV at Matthew 14: 9 and Mark 6:26, "correct" every Textus Receptus Greek which has the plural ("oaths") by the post-1611 publishers, misplacing the apostrophe?
61.Did Jesus teach a way for men to be "worshiped" according to Luke 14:10 in the KJV, contradicting the first commandment and what He said in Luke 4: 8? [Remember — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
62.Is the Holy Spirit an "it" according to John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 26; and 1 Peter 1:11 in the KJV? [Again — you may not go the Greek for any "light" if you are a KJV-Onlyite!]
63.Does Luke 23:56 support a "Friday" crucifixion in the KJV? [No "day" here in Greek]
64.Did Jesus command for a girl to be given "meat" to eat according to Luke 8:55 in the KJV? [or, "of them that sit at meat with thee." at Luke 14:10]
65.Was Charles Haddon Spurgeon a "Bible-corrector" for saying that Romans 8:24 should be rendered "saved in hope," instead of the KJV"s "saved by hope"? [Metropolitan Tabernacle Pulpit, Vol 27, 1881, page 485 — see more Spurgeon KJV comments in What is "KJV-Onlyism?", his & many others" views in the article, "Quotes on Bible Translations."]
66.Was J. Frank Norris a "Bible-corrector" for saying that the correct rendering of John 3:5 should be "born of water and the Spirit," and for saying that "repent and turn" in Acts 26:20 should be "repent, even turn"? [Norris-Wallace Debate, 1934, pgs. 108, 116] Also, is Norman Pickering an "Alexandrian Apostate" for stating, "The nature of language does not permit a "perfect" translation — the semantic area of words differs between languages so that there is seldom complete overlap. A "perfect" translation of John 3:16 from Greek into English is impossible, for we have no perfect equivalent for "agapao" [translated "loved" in John. 3:16]."?
67.Was R. A. Torrey "lying" when he said the following in 1907 — "No one, so far as I know, holds that the English translation of the Bible is absolutely infallible and inerrant. The doctrine held by many is that the Scriptures as originally given were absolutely infallible and inerrant, and that our English translation is a substantially accurate rendering of the Scriptures as originally given"? [Difficulties in the Bible, page 17]
68.Is Don Edwards correct in agreeing "in favor of canonizing our KJV," thus replacing the inspired canon in Hebrew and Greek? [The Flaming Torch, June 1989, page 6]
69.Did God supernaturally "move His Word from the original languages to English" in 1611 as affirmed by The Flaming Torch? [same page above] Indisputable, universally recognized errors in the KJV Special thanks to Bill Reid for providing some source documentation in this section. Errors where the KJV translation disagrees with the Textus Receptus: KJV translates… Textus Receptus actually says… "robbers of churches." Acts 19:37 Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples" "Lucifer" Is 14:12 "O Day Star" (Lucifer is a human origin nickname for the Devil in the 1600"s refers not to the devil but the king of Babylon) "Easter" Acts 12:4 "Passover"(Easter very poor choice as it confuses the pagan origin Roman Catholic "Easter" holy day with what the TR clearly says is the Jewish Passover!) "Baptism" (entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16 immersion, because sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it. "Tithes of all I possess" Lk 18:12 "all I acquire" (Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase) "Schoolmaster" Gal 3:24 "attendant" (the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ) "God save the King": 1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25 "May the king live" ("God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600"s. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) "God Forbid." Ro. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Co. 6:15; Ga. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14 "may it not be" or "let it not be." (KJV adds the word God where it is absent in the TR because it was a common expression in 1600"s. Proof that the translators used dynamic equivalents.) "sweet savour" Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18 "soothing aroma" (KJV appeals to wrong senses- taste instead of smell in the TR) "ashes upon his face" 1 Kings 20:38 "bandage over his eyes" (KJV varies from TR by using ashes)
V) INCONSISTENCY IN TRANSLATING IDENTICAL WORDS AND PHRASES IN THE KJV
Inconsistency in translating identical words and phrases in the KJV Rom 4:3, 9, 22; Gal 3:6 Quotes Gen 15:6 KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse Rom 12:19, Heb 10:30 quotes Deut 32:35 KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse Heb 3:11; 4:3 quotes Ps 95:11 KJV translates identical Greek phrases differently in each NT verse 1 Cor 3:17 KJV translates identical Greek words into: "defile" & "destroy" Mk 15:33, Lk 23:44 KJV translates identical Greek phrases: "whole land" & "all the earth" Rev 4:4 KJV translates identical Greek words into: "seats" & "thrones" Mt 25:46 KJV translates identical Greek words into: "everlasting" & "eternal" Rom 4:3,4,5,6,9,10,11, 22,24 KJV translates identical Greek verbs: "counted", "reckon", "impute" Rom 7 KJV translates identical Greek "epithumeo": "lust", "covet", "concupiscence"
VI) WHY THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS NOT THE BEST TRANSLATION TODAY
1.First, I want to affirm with all evangelical Christians that the Bible is the Word of God, inerrant, inspired, and our final authority for faith and life. However, no where in the Bible am I told that only one translation of it is the correct one. No where am I told that the King James Bible is the best or only "holy" Bible. There is no verse that tells me how God will preserve his word, so I can have no scriptural warrant for arguing that the King James has exclusive rights to the throne. The arguments must proceed on other bases.
2.Second, the Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a humanist named Erasmus. He was under pressure to get it to the press as soon as possible since (a) no edition of the Greek New Testament had yet been published, and (b) he had heard that some monks were just about to publish their edition of the Greek New Testament and he was in a race to beat them. Consequently, his edition has been called the most poorly edited volume in all of literature! It is filled with hundreds of typographical errors which even Erasmus would acknowledge. Two places deserve special mention. In the last six verses of Revelation, Erasmus had no Greek manuscript (=MS) (he only used half a dozen, very late MSS for the whole New Testament any way). He was therefore forced to "back-translate" the Latin into Greek and by so doing he created seventeen variants which have never been found in any other Greek MS of Revelation! He merely guessed at what the Greek might have been. Secondly, for 1 John 5:7-8, Erasmus followed the majority of MSS in reading "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Spirit and the water and the blood." However, there was an uproar in some Roman Catholic circles because his text did not read "there are three witnesses in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Spirit." Erasmus said that he did not put that in the text because he found no Greek MSS which had that reading. This implicit challenge-viz., that if he found such a reading in any Greek MS, he would put it in his text-did not go unnoticed. In 1520, a scribe at Oxford named Roy made such a Greek MS (codex 61, now in Dublin). Erasmus" third edition had the second reading because such a Greek MS was "made to order" to fill the challenge! To date, only a handful of Greek MSS have been discovered which have the Trinitarian formula in 1 John 5:7-8, though none of them is demonstrably earlier than the sixteenth century. That is a very important point. It illustrates something quite significant with regard to the textual tradition which stands behind the King James. Probably most textual critics today fully embrace the doctrine of the Trinity (and, of course, all evangelical textual critics do). And most would like to see the Trinity explicitly taught in 1 John 5:7-8. But most reject this reading as an invention of some overly zealous scribe. The problem is that the King James Bible is filled with readings which have been "created" by overly zealous scribes! Very few of the distinctive King James readings are demonstrably ancient. And most textual critics just happen to embrace the reasonable proposition that the most ancient MSS tend to be more reliable since they stand closer to the date of the autographs. I myself would love to see many of the King James readings retained. The story of the woman caught in adultery (John 7:53-8:11) has always been a favorite of mine about the grace of our savior, Jesus Christ. That Jesus is called God in 1 Timothy 3:16 affirms my view of him. Cf. also John 3:13; 1 John 5:7-8, etc. But when the textual evidence shows me both that scribes had a strong tendency to add, rather than subtract, and that most of these additions are found in the more recent MSS, rather than the more ancient, I find it difficult to accept intellectually the very passages which I have always embraced emotionally. In other words, those scholars who seem to be excising many of your favorite passages from the New Testament are not doing so out of spite, but because such passages are not found in the better and more ancient MSS. It must be emphatically stressed, however, that this does not mean that the doctrines contained in those verses have been jeopardized. My belief in the deity of Christ, for example, does not live or die with 1 Timothy 3:16. In fact, it has been repeatedly affirmed that no doctrine of Scripture has been affected by these textual differences. If that is true, then the "King James only" advocates might be crying wolf where none exists, rather than occupying themselves with the more important aspects of advancing the gospel.
3.Third, the King James Bible has undergone three revisions since its inception in 1611, incorporating more than 100,000 changes. Which King James Bible is inspired, therefore?
4.Fourth, 300 words found in the KJV no longer bear the same meaning-e.g., "suffer the little children to come unto me." Should we really embrace a Bible as the best translation when it uses language which not only is not clearly understood any more, but in fact has been at times perverted and twisted?
5.Fifth, the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has "strain at a gnat and swallow a camel." But the Greek has "strain out a gnat and swallow a camel." In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars).
6.Sixth, when the KJV was first published, it was heavily resisted for being too easy to understand! Some people revere it today because it is difficult to understand. I fear that part of their response is due to pride: they feel as though they are able to discern something that other, less spiritual folks cannot. Often 1 Corinthians 2:13-16 is quoted with reference to the KJV (to the effect that "you would understand it if you were spiritual"). Such a use of that text, however, is a gross distortion of the Scriptures. The words in the New Testament, the grammar, the style, etc.-in short, the language-comprised the common language of the first century. We do God a great disservice when we make the gospel more difficult to understand than He intended it. The reason unspiritual people do not understand the Scriptures is because they have a volitional problem, not an intellectual problem (cf. 1 Cor. 2:14 where "receive", "welcome" shows clearly that the thing which blocks understanding is the sinful will of man).
7.Seventh, those who advocate that the KJV has exclusive rights to being called the Holy Bible are always, curiously, English-speaking people (normally isolated Americans). Yet, Martin Luther"s fine translation of the Bible into German predated the KJV by almost 100 years. Are we so arrogant to say that God has spoken only in English? And where there are substantial discrepancies between Luther"s Bible and the KJV (such as in 1 John 5:7-8), are we going to say that God has inspired both? Is he the author of lies? Our faith does not rest in a singular tradition, nor is it provincial. Vibrant, biblical Christianity must never unite itself with provincialism. Otherwise, missionary endeavor, among other things, would die.
8.Eighth, again, let me repeat an earlier point: Most evangelicals-who embrace all the cardinal doctrines of the faith-prefer a different translation and textual basis than that found in the KJV. In fact, even the editors of the New Scofield Reference Bible (which is based on the KJV) prefer a different text/translation!
9.Finally, though it is true that the modern translations "omit" certain words and verses (or conversely, the KJV adds to the Word of God, depending on how you look at it), the issue is not black-or-white. In fact, the most recent edition of a Greek New Testament which is based on the majority of MSS, rather than the most ancient ones (and thus stands firmly behind the King James tradition), when compared to the standard Greek New Testament used in most modern translations, excises over six hundred and fifty words or phrases! Thus, it is not proper to suggest that only modern translations omit; the Greek text behind the KJV omits, too! The question, then, is not whether modern translations have deleted portions of the Word of God, but rather whether either the KJV or modern translations have altered the Word of God. I contend that the KJV has far more drastically altered the Scriptures than have modern translations. Nevertheless, I repeat: most textual critics for the past two hundred and fifty years would say that no doctrine is affected by these changes. One can get saved reading the KJV and one can get saved reading the NIV, NASB, etc. Final comments: I trust that this brief survey of reasons I have for thinking that the King James Bible is not the best available translation will not be discarded quickly. All of us have a tendency to make mountains out of molehills and then to set up fortresses in those "mountains." We often cling to things out of emotion, rather than out of true piety. And as such we do a great disservice to a dying world which is desperately in need of a clear, strong voice proclaiming the gospel of Jesus Christ. Soli Deo gloria! Addendum: One further point is necessary. With the recent publication of several different books villifying modern translations, asserting that they were borne out of conspiratorial motives, a word should be mentioned about this concocted theory. First, many of these books are written by people who have little or no knowledge of Greek or Hebrew, and are, further, a great distortion of the facts. I have read books on textual criticism for more than a quarter of a century, but never have I seen such illogic, out-of-context quotations, and downright deceptions about the situation as in these recent books. Second, although it is often asserted that heretics produced some of the New Testament MSS we now have in our possession, there is only one group of MSS known to be produced by heretics: certain Byzantine MSS of the book of Revelation. This is significant because the Byzantine text stands behind the KJV! These MSS formed part of a mystery cult textbook used by various early cults. But KJV advocates constantly make the charge that the earliest MSS (the Alexandrian MSS) were produced by heretics. The sole basis they have for this charge is that certain readings in these MSS are disagreeable to them! Third, when one examines the variations between the Greek text behind the KJV (the Textus Receptus) and the Greek text behind modern translations, it is discovered that the vast majority of variations are so trivial as to not even be translatable (the most common is the moveable nu, which is akin to the difference between "who" and "whom"!). Fourth, when one compares the number of variations that are found in the various MSS with the actual variations between the Textus Receptus and the best Greek witnesses, it is found that these two are remarkably similar. There are over 400,000 textual variants among NT MSS. But the differences between the Textus Receptus and texts based on the best Greek witnesses number about 5000-and most of these are untranslatable differences! In other words, over 98% of the time, the Textus Receptus and the standard critical editions agree. Those who villify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years."
VII) THE ARCHAIC LANGUAGE OF THE KJV IS A HINDRANCE TO THE UNDERSTANDING OF GOD"S WORD
A) INTRODUCTION
Example of why archaic language of the KJV is a barrier to knowing about Jesus. All the archaic words in this paragraph are found in the KJV: "Sith the noise of the bruit of this school hath reached to thee-ward, we trust that our concourse liketh you well-particularly those who blaze abroad that there is error here. Whoso setteth thee against us-whoso saith we offend all-speaketh leasing. We be not affrighted, but withal, we are straightened in our bowels. We knoweth well that what thou wilst hear straightway wilt fast close up thy thoughts. With som we be abjects, some have defied us; but there has been no daysman betwixt us. They subvert the simple!" (References where these words are found: Ez 35:6, Jer 10:22, 1Sam 19:4, Prov 1:21, Esther 8:8, Mk 1:45, Prov 25:14, Jas 3:2, Ps 4:2, Lk 24:37, Acts 25:27, 1Tim 5:13, 2Cor 6:12, Mt 4:20, Ge 20:18, Ps 35:15, Num 23:8, Job 9:33, Ge 31:37, Lam 3:36, Prov 14:15
B) 436 EXAMPLES OF WORDS WHICH ARE NOT USED TODAY CAUSING LACK OF UNDERSTANDING OF THE CONTENT OF THE GOD"S WORD
Below are 436 examples of how the KJV uses outdated language. This is the primary reason why there is a need for modern translations. One should not need to use a dictionary to understand the Bible. Rather, it should convey the message of God as understandable as a city newspaper! 436 Archaic terms! Why must one use an old English dictionary just to understand God"s message to man? 1. Adamant -- Ezek. 3:9; Zech. 7:12. 2. Abject -- Psalm 35:15. 3. Agone -- 1 Sam. 30:13. 4. Alamoth -- 1 Chron. 15:20. 5. Almug -- 1 Kings 10:11-12. 6. Aloes -- Prov. 7:17; John 19:39. 7. Ambassage -- Luke 14:32. 8. Ambushment -- 1 Chron. 13:13 9. Amerce -- Deut. 22:19. 10. Angle -- Isa. 19:8; Hab. 1:15. 11. Anon -- Matt. 13:20; Mark 1:30. 12. Apothecary -- Exo. 30:25, 35; 37:29 13. Ariel -- Isa. 29:1,2,7. 14. Armhole -- Jer. 38:12. 15. Artificer -- 1 Chron. 29:5. 16. Assay -- Job 4:2; Acts 9:26. 17. Asswage -- Job 16:5. 18. Astonied -- Ezra 9:4. 19. Assupim -- 1 Chron. 26:15,16. 20. Attent -- 2 Chron. 6:40; 7:15. 21. Aul -- Exo. 21:6. 22. Balances -- Lev. 19:36; Jer. 32:10. 23. Bald Locust -- Lev. 11:22. 24. Bason -- 2 Chron. 4:8; Exo. 24:6. 24. Beeves -- Lev. 22:19; Num. 31:28 25. Behemoth -- Job 40:15. 26. Bekah -- Exo. 38:26. 27. Besom -- Isa. 14:23. 28. Bestead -- Isa. ;8:21. 29. Betimes -- Gen. 26:31; Job 8:5. 30. Bewray -- Isa. 16:3; Prov. 29:24. 31. Bittern -- Isa. 34:11; Zeph. 2:14. 32. Blain -- Exo. 9:9,10. 33. Bloody Flux -- Acts 28:8. 34. Bolled -- Exo. 9:31. 35. Bondman -- Gen. 44:33 36. Botch -- Deut. 28:27,35. 37. Bray -- Job 6:5; Prov. 27:22. 38. Breeches -- Exo. 38:42; Lev. 16:4. 39. Brigandine -- Jer. 46:4. 40. Broidered -- Ezek. 16:10; Exo. 28:4. 41. Bruit -- Jer. 10:22; Nahum 3:19 42. Buckler -- 2 Sam. 22:31; Song 4:4. 43. Burning Ague -- Lev. 26:16. 44. Byword -- 2 Chron. 7:20; Psalm 44:14. 45. Cab -- 2 Kings 6:25. 46. Calamus -- Ezek. 27:19; Exo. 30:23. 47. Calves of our lips -- Hos. 14:2. 48. Camphire -- Song of Sol. 1:14; 4:13. 49. Canker -- 2 Tim. 2:17. 50. Cankerworm -- Joel 1:4; Nahum 3:15. 51. Carbuncle -- Exo. 28:17; Ezek. 28:13. 52. Cassia -- Exo. 30:24; Psalm 45:8. 53. Cast in the teeth -- Matt. 27:44. 54. Castor and Polux -- Acts 28:11. 55. Caul -- Isa. 3:18; Lev. 3:4 56. Censer -- 2 Chron. 26:19; Luke 1:9. 67. Chalcedony -- Rev. 21:19. 68. Chalkstone -- Isa. 27:9. 69. Chamberlain -- Acts 12:20. 70. Chamois -- Deut. 14:5. 71. Champaign -- Deut. 11:30. 72. Chancellor -- Ezra 4:8,9,17. 73. Chapiter -- 1 Kings 7:16-18. 74. Chapmen -- 2 Chron. 9:14. 75. Chapt -- Jer. 14:4. 76. Checker Work -- 1 Kings 7:17. 77. Cheek Teeth -- Joel 1:6. 78. Chemosh -- 1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 3:27. 79. Cherub -- Ezek. 1:5-11; Psalm 18:10. 80. Choler -- Dan. 8:7; 11:11. 81. Churl -- Isa. 32:5,7. 82. Ciel -- Jer. 22:14. 83. Clave -- Ruth 1:14. 84. Clift -- Exo. 33:32. 85. Close Place -- 2 Sam. 22:46; Psalm 18:45. 86. Coat of Mail -- 1 Sam. 17:5. 87. Cockatrice -- Jer. 8:17. 88. Cocle -- Job 31:40. 89. College -- 2 Kings 22:14; 2 Chr. 34:22. 90. Collop -- Job 15:27. 91. Concision -- Phil. 3:2. 92. Concourse -- Acts 19:40. 93. Concupiscence -- Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5. 94. Coney -- Lev. 11:5. 95. Confection -- Exo. 30:35. 96. Confectionary -- 1 Sam. 8:13. 97. Contemn -- Psalm 10:13. 98. Convocation -- Exo. 12:16; Lev. 23:7. 99. Coping -- 1 Kings 7:9. 100. Cor -- Ezek. 45:14. 101. Corban -- Mark 7:11. 102. Coriander -- Exo. 16:31; Num. 11:7 103. Cormorant -- Lev. 11:17; Isa. 34:11. 104. Couch -- Gen. 49:9; Deut. 33:13. 105. Coulter -- 1 Sam. 13:20,21. 106. Countervail -- Esth. 7:4. 107. Covert -- 2 Kings 16:18; Job 38:40. 108. Creeping Thing -- Gen. 1:26. 109. Crisping Pin -- Isa. 3:22. 110. Crookbackt -- Lev. 21:20. 111. Cruse -- 1 Sam. 26:11; 1 Kings 14:3. 112. Cubit -- Deut. 3:11; Matt. 6:27. 113. Cumi -- Mark 5:41. 114. Cummin -- Isa. 28:25,27. 115. Curious Arts -- Acts 19:19. 116. Cuttings -- Lev. 19:28; 21:5. 117. discomfit -- Judg. 4:15; Psalm 18:14 118. Dragon -- Psalm 74:13;; Isa. 27:1 119. Dulcimer -- Dan. 3:5, 10, 15 120. Earnest -- 2 Cor. 1:22; Eph. 1:14 121. Emerods -- Deut. 28:27. 122. Endamage -- Ezra 4:13 123. Endue -- Gen. 30:20; 2 Chron. 2:12. 124. Engine -- Ezek. 26:9; 2 Chron. 20:15. 125. Ensample -- Phil. 3:17; 2 Pet. 2:6. 126. Ensign -- Isa. 11:12; Zech. 9:16. 127. Ephah -- Lev. 5:11; Ezek. 45:11. 128. Ephphata -- Mark 7:34. 129. Ephod -- Exo. 28:6-12. 130. Espouse -- 2 Sam. 3:14; Matt. 1:18. 131. Euroclydon -- Acts 27:14. 132. Exactor -- Isa. 60:17. 133. Exorcist -- Acts 19:13. 134. Extreme Burning -- Deut. 28:22. 135. Eyeservice -- Col. 3:22; Eph. 6:6. 137. Fain -- Job 27:22; Luke 15:16. 138. Fairs -- Ezek. 27:12, 14, 16. 139. Fallow Ground -- Jer. 4:3; Hos. 10:12. 140. Familiar Friend -- Job 19:14; Psalm 41:9. 141. Familiar Spirit -- 2 Kings 23:24. 142. Farthing -- Matt. 5:26. 143. Fast -- 1 Sam. 31:13; Esth. 4:16. 144. Fat -- Joel 2:24; Lev. 3:16. 145. Fatling -- 1 Sam. 15:9; Isa. 11:6. 146. Fen -- Job 40:21. 147. Fillet -- Exo. 27:10,11. 148. Fining Pot -- Prov. 17:3; 27:21. 149. Firepan -- 2 Kings 25:15. 150. Firkin -- John 2:6. 151. Fitch -- Isa. 28:25, 27. 152. Flagon -- Isa. 22:24. 153. Fleshhook -- Exo. 27:3. 154. Fleshpot -- Exo. 16:3. 155. Flote (Floats)-- 2 Chron. 2:16. 156. Footman -- 1 Sam. 22:17; Jer. 12:5. 157. Footstool -- 2 Chron. 9:18. 158. Foreship -- Acts 27:30. 159. Foul Spirit -- Mark 9:25; Rev. 18:2. 160. Foursquare -- Exo. 27:1; Rev. 21:16. 161. Fowler -- Psalm 91:3; Hos. 9:8. 162. Fray -- Deut. 28:26; Jer. 7:33. 163. Freckled Spot -- Lev. 13:39. 164. Fretting -- Lev. 13:51,52. 165. Frontlet -- Exo. 13:16; Deut. 6:8. 166. Fuller -- 2 Kings 18:17; Mark 9:3. 167. Gabbatha -- John 19:13. 168. Galbanum -- Exo. 30:34. 169. Gall -- Job 15:13; 20:25; Matt. 27:34. 170. Gallant Ship -- Isa. 33:21. 171. Galley -- Isa. 33:21. 172. Gat -- 1 Kings 1:1; Eccl. 2:8. 173. Gerah -- Lev. 27:25. 174. Ghost -- Gen. 49:33. 175. Gin -- Amos 3:5; Psalm 141:9. 176. Girt -- 2 Kings 1:8; John 21:7. 177. Glean -- Lev. 19:10. 178. Glede -- Deut. 14:13. 179. Glister -- 1 Chron. 39:2; Luke 9:29. 180. Graff -- Rom. 11:17, 19, 23, 24. 181. Greaves -- 1 Sam. 17:6. 182. Greyhound -- Prov. 30:31. 183. Grisled -- Gen. 31:10; Zech. 6:3. 184. Habergeon -- Exo. 28:32; 2 Chron. 26:14. 185. Haft -- Judg. 3:22. 186. Hale -- Luke 12:58; Acts 8:3. 187. Halt -- Mark 9:45; Luke 14:21; John 5:3. 188. Handbreadth -- Exo. 37:12; 1 Kings 7:26. 189. Handstaves -- Ezek. 39:9. 190. Hap -- Ruth 2:3. 191. Haply -- Mark 11:13; Acts 5:39. 192. Hart -- Deut. 12:15; Isa. 35:6. 193. Hasty Fruit -- Isa. 28:4. 194. Havock -- Acts 8:3. 195. Heath -- Jer. 17:6. 196. Heave Offering-- Num. 18:8. 197. Heave Shoulder-- Lev. 10:14. 198. Helve -- Deut. 19:5. 199. Higgaion -- Psalm 9:16. 200. Hindmost -- Num. 2:31. 201. Hiss -- Jer. 19:8. 202. Hoar -- Isa. 46:4. 203. Hoar Frost -- Exo. 16:14; Psalm 147:16. 204. Hoary -- Job 41:32. 205. Hoise -- Acts 27:40. 206. Holpen -- Dan. 11:34; Luke 1:54. 207. Horseleach -- Prov. 30:15. 208. Hosen -- Dan. 3:21. 209. Hough -- Josh. 11:6, 9; 2 Sam. 8:4. 210. Hungerbitten -- Job 18:12. 211. Husbandry -- 1 Cor. 3:9. 212. Ill Savour -- Joel 2:20. 213. Implead -- Acts 19:38. 214. Inclosing -- Exo. 28:20. 215. Infolding -- Ezek. 1:4. 216. Issue -- Ezek. 47:12; Rev. 9:17. 217. Jachin and Boaz -- 1 Kings 7:15-22. 217. Jacinth -- Rev. 21:20. 218. Jah -- Psalm 68:4. 219. Jeopard -- Judg. 5:18. 220. Jod -- 1 Chron. 22:3. 221. Jot -- Matt. 5:18. 222. Jubile -- Lev. 25:8-17. 223. Kerchief -- Ezek. 13:18,21. 224. Kindred -- Gen. 24:4. 225. Kine -- 1 Sam. 6:10,12,14; Amos 4:1. 226. Kite -- Lev. 11:14; Deut. 14:13. 227. Kneadingtrough-- Exo. 8:3: 12:34. 228. Knop -- Exo. 25:31, 34, 36.; 1 Kings 6:18. 229. Lade -- Gen. 47:17; 1 Kings 12:11. 230. Lancet -- 1 Kings 18:28. 231. Lapwing -- Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18. 232. Latchet -- Isa. 5:278; Mark 1:7. 233. Latter Rain -- Deut. 11:14; Zech. 10:1. 234. Laver -- Exo. 31:9; 1 Kings 7:40, 43. 235. Leasing -- Psalm 4:2; 5:6. 236. Legion -- Mark 5:9, 15; Luke 8:30. 237. Leviathan -- Psalm 74:14; Isa. 27:1; Job 41:1. 238. Libertines -- Acts 6:9. 240. Lien -- Gen. 26:10; Psalm 68:13. 241. Lign Aloes -- Num. 24:6. 242. Lily Work -- 1 Kings 7:19, 22. 243. Lintel -- Exo. 12:22,23; Amos 9:1. 244. Log -- Lev. 14:10, 21. 245. Lowring -- Matt. 16:3. 246. Lucre -- 1 Sam. 8:2; 1 Tim. 3:3,8. 247. Lunatick -- Matt. 4:24; 17:15. 248. Magnifical -- 1 Chron. 22:5. 249. Mail -- 1 Sam. 17:38. 250. Malefactor -- Luke 23:32,33; John 18:30. 251. Mallow -- Job 30:4. 252. Mammon -- Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:11,13. 253. Mandrake -- Gen. 30:14-16. 254. Manch -- Ezek. 45:12. 255. Maranatha -- 1 Cor. 16:22. 256. Maschil -- Psalm 32 (Title). 257. Matrix -- Exo. 13:12,15;34:19; Num. 18:15. 258. Maul -- Prov. 25:18. 259. Maw -- Deut. 18:3. 260. Meat Offering -- 1 Chron. 21:23. 261. Mete -- Exo. 16:18; Isa. 40:12. 262. Meteyard -- Lev. 19:35. 263. Michtam -- Psalm 16,56-60 (in title). 264. Milcom -- 1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13. 265. Mincing -- Isa. 3:16. 266. Mingled People-- Jer. 25:20, 24; Ezek. 30:5. 267. Minish -- Psalm 107:39; Exo. 5:19. 268. Mite -- Mark 12:42; Luke 12:59. 269. Mitre -- Zech. 3:5. 270. Mortar -- Num. 11:8; Prov. 27:22. 271. Morter -- Exo. 1:14; Nahum 3:14; 272. Mote -- Matt. 7:4; Luke 6:41,42. 273. Moving Things -- Gen. 1:20. 274. Muffler -- Isa. 3:19. 275. Munition -- Isa. 29:7; 33:16. 276. Murrian -- Exo. 9:3. 277. Musick -- 1 Sam. 18:6; Luke 15:25. 278. Myrrh -- Gen. 37:25; Matt. 2:11. 279. Naught -- Prov. 20:14; 2 Kings 2:19. 280. Necromancer -- Deut. 18:11. 281. Neesing -- Job 41:18. 282. Nehushtan -- 2 Kings 18:4. 283. Nergal -- 2 Kings 17:30. 284. Nether -- Deut. 24:6; Job 41:24. 285. Nethermost -- 1 Kings 6:6. 286. Nethinim -- 1 Chron. 9:2; Ezra 7:7. 287. Nettle -- Isa. 34:13. 288. Nigh -- Deut. 22:2; Luke 21:28. 289. Nitre -- Prov. 25:20; Jer. 2:22. 290. Noisome -- Psalm 91:3; Ezek. 14:21. 291. Oblation -- Lev. 2:4,12; Ezek. 45:1. 292. Occurrent -- 1 Kings 5:4. 293. Offscouring -- Lamen. 3:45; I Cor. 4:13. 294. Oil Tree -- Isa. 41:19. 295. Omega -- Rev. 1:8, 11. 296. Omer -- Exo. 16:16, 18, 22. 297. Onycha -- Exo. 30:34. 298. Onyx -- Exo. 28:20; 39:13; Ezek. 28:13. 299. Oracle -- 1 Pet. 4:11. 300. Orion -- Job 9:9; 38:31; Amos 5:8. 301. Osprey -- Lev. 11:13. 302. Ossifrage -- Lev. 11:13; Deut. 14:12. 303. Outwent -- Mark 6:33. 304. Overcharge -- 2 Cor. 2:5; Luke 21:34. 305. Overlive -- Josh. 24:31. 306. Overpast -- Psalm 57:1; Isa. 26:20. 307. Overrun -- 2 Sam. 18:23; Nahum 1:8. 308. Paddle -- Deut. 23:13. 309. Palmerworm -- Joel 1:4; 2:25; Amos 4:9. 310. Pannag -- Ezek. 27:17. 311. Parbar -- 1 Chron. 26:18. 312. Pavement -- Esth. 1:6. 313. Peculiar -- Exo. 19:5; Titus 2:14. 314. Pence -- Mark 14:5; Matt. 18:28. 315. Penury -- Prov. 14:23; Luke 21:4. 316. Peradventure -- Gen. 24:39; Rom. 5:7. 317. Pestle -- Prov. 27:22. 318. Phylacteries -- Deut. 11:13-22. 319. Pill -- Gen. 30:37,38. 320. Plaister -- Dan. 5:5; Lev. 13:43,48. 321. Plaiting -- 1 Pet. 3:3. 322. Plat -- 2 Kings 9:26. 323. Pleasant Plants -- Isa. 17:10. 324. Pleiades -- Job 9:9; 38:31. 325. Plummet -- 2 Kings 21:13; Isa. 28:17. 326. Pommegranate -- Num. 20:5; Deut. 8:8. 327. Pommel -- 2 Chron. 4:12. 328. Porter -- 1 Chron. 23:5; Neh. 7:73. 329. Potsherd -- Prov. 26:23; Isa. 45:9. 330. Pottage -- Gen. 25:29,30,34; 2 Kings 4:38. 331. Pourtray -- Ezek. 4:1; 8:10. 332. Pransing -- Judg. 5:22; Nahum 3:2. 333. Pressfat -- Hag. 2:16. 334. Prick -- Num. 33:55; Acts 9:5; 26:14. 335. Privily -- 1 Sam. 24:4; Gal. 2:4. 336. Profane -- Lev. 21:7; Heb. 12:16. 337. Propitiation -- Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10. 338. Proselyte -- Matt. 23:15; Acts 2:10. 339. Provender -- Gen. 42:27; Isa. 30:24. 340. Pruninghook -- Isa. 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3 341. Psaltery -- 1 Sam. 10:5; Psalm 144;9 342. Publican -- Matt. 9:11; Luke 18:10; 19:2. 343. Pur -- Esth. 3:7; 9:24. 344. Purrim -- Esth. 9:21-32. 345. Purtenance -- Exo. 12:9 346. Purifying Sores -- Isa. 1:6. 347. Pygarg -- Deut. 14:5. 348. Quarternion -- Acts 12:4. 349. Quick -- Num. 16:30; Acts 10:42. 350. Quit -- 1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Cor. 16:13. 351. Rainment -- Gen. 45:22. 352. Rampart -- Lamen. 2:8; Nahum 3:8. 353. Ravening -- Psalm 22:13; Matt. 7:15. 354. Ravin -- Gen. 49:27; Nahum 2:12. 355. Recorder -- 2 Sam. 8:16; 2 Chron. 34:8. 356. Redound -- 2 Cor. 4:15. 357. Reins -- Psalm 16:7; Isa. 11:5. 358. Remphan -- Acts 7:43. 359. Rereward -- Num. 10:25; 1 Sam. 29:2. 360. Ribband -- Num. 15:38. 361. Rie -- Exo. 9:32; Isa. 28:25. 362. Ringstraked -- Gen. 39:35,39,40. 363. Roe -- Isa. 13:14. 364. Ruddy -- 1 Sam. 16:12. 365. Rude -- 2 Cor. 11:6. 366. Sackbut -- Dan. 3:5. 367. Sackcloth -- Gen. 37:34; 2 Kings 19:1. 368. Saffron -- Song of Sol. 4:14. 369. Satyr -- Isa. 13:21; 34:14. 379. Savour -- Lev. 26:31; Matt. 16:23. 380. Scabbard -- Jer. 47:6. 381. Scall -- Lev. 13:30-37; 14:54. 382. Scrabble -- 1 Sam. 21:13. 383. Screech Owl -- Isa. 34:14. 384. Scum -- Ezek. 24:6,11,12. 385. Seethe -- 2 Kings 4:38; Job 41:20. 386. Selvedge -- Exo. 26:4; 36:11. 387. Servitor -- 2 Kings 4:43. 388. Shambles -- 1 Cor. 10:25. 389. Sheaf -- Gen. 37:7; Deut. 24:19. 390. Sheepcote -- 2 Sam. 7:8; 1 Chron. 17:7. 391. Sheminith -- 1 Chron. 15:21; Psa 6 (title). 392. Sherd -- Isa. 30:14; Ezek. 23:34. 393. Shewbread -- 1 Sam. 21:6; 1 Chron. 9:32. 394. Shibboleth -- Judg. 12:6. 395. Shigionoth -- Habbakkuk 3:1. 396. Shiloh -- Gen. 49:10. 397. Shittah Tree -- Isa. 41:19. 398. Silverling -- Isa. 7:23. 399. Sith -- Ezek. 35:6. 400. Snuff -- Jer. 2:24; 14:6. 401. Snuffdish -- Exo. 25:38; 37:23; Num. 4:9. 402. Snuffers -- 1 Kings 7:50; 2 Chron. 4:22. 403. Sod -- 2 Chron. 35:13. 404. Sodden -- Exo. 12:9; 1 Sam. 2:15. 405. Sojourn -- Judg. 19:16; Isa. 52:4. 406. Sottish -- Jer. 4:22. 407. Spikenard -- Mark 14:3; John 12:3. 408. Spoiler -- Judg. 2:14; 1 Sam. 13:17. 409. Stacte -- Exo. 30:34. 410. Stomacher -- Isa. 3:24. 411. Strait -- Isa. 49:20; Acts 26:5. 412. Strake -- Gen. 39:37; Lev. 14:37. 413. Stripe -- Exo. 21:25. 414. Suborn -- Acts 6:11. 415. Succor -- 2 Sam. 8:5; 18:3; Heb. 2:18. 416. Sunder -- Job 41:17. 417. Superfluous -- Lev. 21:18; 22:23. 418. Supple -- Ezek. 16:4. 419. Suppliant -- Zeph. 3:10. 420. Surfeiting -- Luke 21:34. 421. Swaddling Clothes -- Luke 2:7,12; Job 38:9. 422. Sycamine -- Luke 17:6. 423. Sycomore -- Amos 7:14. 424. Taber -- Nahum 2:7. 425. Tablet -- Num. 31:50; Isa. 3:20. 426. Tache -- Exo. 26 Quit -- 1 Sam. 4:9; 1 Cor. 16:13. 351. Rainment -- Gen. 45:22. 352. Rampart -- Lamen. 2:8; Nahum 3:8. 353. Ravening -- Psalm 22:13; Matt. 7:15. 354. Ravin -- Gen. 49:27; Nahum 2:12. 355. Recorder -- 2 Sam. 8:16; 2 Chron. 34:8. 356. Redound -- 2 Cor. 4:15. 357. Reins -- Psalm 16:7; Isa. 11:5. 358. Remphan -- Acts 7:43. 359. Rereward -- Num. 10:25; 1 Sam. 29:2. 360. Ribband -- Num. 15:38. 361. Rie -- Exo. 9:32; Isa. 28:25. 362. Ringstraked -- Gen. 39:35,39,40. 363. Roe -- Isa. 13:14. 364. Ruddy -- 1 Sam. 16:12. 365. Rude -- 2 Cor. 11:6. 366. Sackbut -- Dan. 3:5. 367. Sackcloth -- Gen. 37:34; 2 Kings 19:1. 368. Saffron -- Song of Sol. 4:14. 369. Satyr -- Isa. 13:21; 34:14. 379. Savour -- Lev. 26:31; Matt. 16:23. 380. Scabbard -- Jer. 47:6. 381. Scall -- Lev. 13:30-37; 14:54. 382. Scrabble -- 1 Sam. 21:13. 383. Screech Owl -- Isa. 34:14. 384. Scum -- Ezek. 24:6,11,12. 385. Seethe -- 2 Kings 4:38; Job 41:20. 386. Selvedge -- Exo. 26:4; 36:11. 387. Servitor -- 2 Kings 4:43. 388. Shambles -- 1 Cor. 10:25. 389. Sheaf -- Gen. 37:7; Deut. 24:19. 390. Sheepcote -- 2 Sam. 7:8; 1 Chron. 17:7. 391. Sheminith -- 1 Chron. 15:21; Psa 6 (title). 392. Sherd -- Isa. 30:14; Ezek. 23:34. 393. Shewbread -- 1 Sam. 21:6; 1 Chron. 9:32. 394. Shibboleth -- Judg. 12:6. 395. Shigionoth -- Habbakkuk 3:1. 396. Shiloh -- Gen. 49:10. 397. Shittah Tree -- Isa. 41:19. 398. Silverling -- Isa. 7:23. 399. Sith -- Ezek. 35:6. 400. Snuff -- Jer. 2:24; 14:6. 401. Snuffdish -- Exo. 25:38; 37:23; Num. 4:9. 402. Snuffers -- 1 Kings 7:50; 2 Chron. 4:22. 403. Sod -- 2 Chron. 35:13. 404. Sodden -- Exo. 12:9; 1 Sam. 2:15. 405. Sojourn -- Judg. 19:16; Isa. 52:4. 406. Sottish -- Jer. 4:22. 407. Spikenard -- Mark 14:3; John 12:3. 408. Sodpdoiler -- Judg. 2:14; 1 Sam. 13:17. 409. Stacte -- Exo. 30:34. 410. Stomacher -- Isa. 3:24. 411. Strait -- Isa. 49:20; Acts 26:5. 412. Strake -- Gen. 30:37; Lev. 14:37 413. Supple -- Ezek. 16:4 414. Sycamine -- Luke 17:6 415. Sycomore -- Amos 7:14 416. Taber -- Nah. 2:7 417. Tache -- Exo. 26,11; 36:13,18 418. Target -- 1 Kings 10:16; 2 Chron 9:15; 14:8. 419. Tender eyed -- Gen. 29:17 420. Trow -- Luke 17:9 421. Unction -- 1 John 2:20 422. Unicorn -- Num. 23:22; Deut 33:17; Job 39:9 423. Victual -- Exo. 12:39 424. Visage -- Dan. 3:19 425. Void place -- 1 Kings 22:10 426. Wax -- 2 Sam. 3:1; Rev. 18:3 427. Wen -- Lev. 22:22 428. Wheaten -- Exo. 29:2 429. Whelp -- 2 Sam. 17:8; Ezek. 19:3 430. Wimple -- Isa. 3:22 431. Winefat -- Isa. 63:2; Mark 12:1 432. Wist -- Josh. 8:14; Mark 9:6 433. Wit -- Gen. 24:21; Ex. 2:4; 2 Kings 10:29 434. Wizard -- Lev. 19:31; 20:27; 1 Sam. 28:3 435. Wot -- Gen. 39:8; Rom. 11:2 436. Wreathen -- Exo. 28:14; 39:15; 2 Kings 25:27 "
VIII) GREG HARTMAN"S POINT OF VIEW FROM THIS WEBSITE:
christianhumor.guide@miningco.com
A) ANSWER TO: "THE KJV IS THE BEST TRANSLATION BECAUSE IT IS THE MOST LITERAL"
"-- another incorrect, but oft-repeated, contention about the KJV. Let me emphasize for the umpteenth time in this debate that I cherish and highly esteem the KJV. It has not survived for 387 years because it"s not an excellent rendition of the Scriptures -- it is. Forty or 50 years ago, when other English translations began hitting the market, lots of folks said they still preferred the KJV. Before long, the KJV was the official translation of many institutions (and still is). Soon after, the KJV began being touted as the best English translation, period. From there, it wasn"t long before folks were insisting the KJV was the only legitimate English translation. Finally, we have those who claim the KJV is not only the best and only legitimate English translation, any other attempt to translate the Bible is sinful because the KJV is actually an inspired translation! (sound familiar?). Anyway, in this article I take a look at the writer"s claims that the KJV is both literal and error-free.
Greek is so different from English that a so-called "literal" translation would be unintelligible." Compare that to Young"s or any other "literal" translation and you will find that such works are not really literal (I have Green"s "literal" translation myself). The grammar and syntax are rearranged and smoothed out in these translations. They are far less dynamic than the NIV or KJV, but they"re still not totally formal. The KJV simply is not a literal translation. It is very, very good, but it has its problems too. Did you know the Puritans and Pilgrims refused to bring the KJV to America with them? They said it was too idiomatic and paraphrastic!
B) OUTRIGHT TRANSLATION ERRORS
I can give you a few examples of serious mistakes in the KJV and some paraphrased sections:
1.The word "Parbar" in 1 Chr. 26:18 is a transliteration of the Hebrew, not a translation. They didn"t translate it because it"s a hapax legomena (a word that only appears once in the Bible), and they didn"t know what it meant. So they guessed that it was the name of a place or city. But it"s not. It means "the place outside," which discoveries such as the Dead Sea Scrolls helped ascertain.
2.The unicorn of the KJV (see Lev. 23:22, 24:8, etc.) should be translated "wild ox" -- it refers to the aeurochs, a now-extinct ox that lived in Asia Minor. The KJV translators didn"t know this, so they took a stab at the word based on its etymology (horned beast). They were wrong.
3.The first two aren"t very important, but the inclusion of Jehovah was (see the article on "God"s "real" name"). The word Jehovah simply does not exist; the KJV translators accidentally invented it when they tried to pronounce "YHWH" with the vowel pointing for the word "Adonai," which the Masoretes placed under YHWH to remind rabbis and readers not to say the tetragrammaton out loud. The KJV translators didn"t know this; Western knowledge of Hebrew was not as extensive as it became later. These problems plague all translators, and the KJV is no exception.
C) ANSWER TO THE CLAIM THAT THE KJV NEVER PARAPHRASES
Here are several examples:
1.The KJV translators inserted the euphemism "cut themselves off" in Gal. 5:17, when the Greek really says "emasculate themselves."
2.The KJV renders Isa. 57:8 "thou lovedst their bed where thou sawest it." The Hebrew reads "you loved their couch; at a hand you looked." They changed the noun "hand" into the article "it" to help the idiom get across (notice that in a lot of KJV editions there are italic words scattered around here and there. These words are added for clarification and are not represented in the original text). There"s nothing wrong with this; many translations add clarifying words. But a literal translation can"t do that and still be literal; it becomes a paraphrase.
3.In Luke 21:2 the KJV says the widow put in "two mites" (English coins); the Greek says "two lepta" (ancient Greek coins). The KJV translators knew their readers wouldn"t know a lepta from a drachma from a denarius, so they paraphrased to make sure the point got across. They did the same thing in many places; check out Matthew 5:26, where they replaced "kodrantes" with "farthing." Again, there"s nothing wrong with this -- but it"s not literal; it"s a paraphrase.
4.In Matthew 5:38 they replaced "tunic and coat" with "coat and cloak." 5:12 reads "rejoice and be exceeding glad" in the KJV and "rejoice and leap for joy" in the Greek. Matt. 23:6 says "they love the uppermost rooms at the feast" in the KJV and "they love the first couch at the suppers" in Greek. Did the point get across? Yes. But is it translated literally? No -- it is paraphrased. All these examples and many, many more are paraphrases.
5.In the Greek -- yes, even in the Majority Text -- James the brother of Jesus is really named Jacob. No one ever admitted it, but a lot of folks think the KJV translators changed Jacob to James as a nod to King Jimmy. If you don"t believe me, get a concordance/lexicon and look it up. The tradition stuck, but if you ever get a chance to look at an old Great Bible, a Rheims-Douai, a Tyndale, and Bishop"s Bible or a Wycliffe translation, look for the Book of Jacob, not James.
D) THE ORIGINAL EDITIONS OF THE KJV INCLUDED THE APOCRYPHA
6.Finally, did you know the original editions of the KJV included the Apocrypha? King James called Hampton Court to try and get all the different sects in England to stop fighting; the KJV was the solution they came up with. It was actually a revision of several earlier translations, especially Tyndale"s (more than 90 percent of the New Testament is Tyndale"s work). Many of the scholars involved protested adding the Apocrypha, but the Catholic representatives there refused to be involved without it. So King James override the Protestant translators and ordered them to include the Apocrypha. These are just the kind of political/ lexical/ textual /translational problems every every translation team has to deal with. It doesn"t set the KJV apart from any other translation at all -- and that"s the point. The only effective difference between the KJV and most other Bibles is that it"s older.
E) ANSWER TO THE QUESTION: DO YOU SIMPLY REFUSE TO BELIEVE THE WIDE RANGE OF VARIANTS IN THE OTHER TEXTS BESIDES THE MAJORITY TEXT
That"s not really a good debate tactic. The figure is most likely from the Waite book, and I believe it is accurate (Waite has a table where he states that there is a 7% variation between greek texts). I would have to state that your disbelief falls into the category of opinion. Opinion, yes, but informed opinion. There are about 24,000 Greek manuscripts extant right now. If a textual variant -- most of which are spelling changes -- like "color" vs. "colour" -- is repeated in, say, 1,000 manuscripts, it end up being listed as a thousand variances. The number refers to manuscripts, not the variance itself, which can make it look as if one variance is really a thousand. The catalog of manuscripts and variances is totted up that way, but it makes the situation look worse than it is to the layman. The fact is much like the NKJV translators say in their preface: almost all the variances between the Majority Text and other texts involve spelling or word order variations, and none affect any major doctrine. I agree with you that it would be nice to have a benchmark standard to stand on, but the only way to do that is to learn Greek and Hebrew; those are the ONLY inspired texts. The KJV simply can"t be held up to that level of authority. If the Lord tarries another hundred years, the Shakespearean English of the KJV will be almost unintelligible to the average English speaker. The KJV uses "meat" when we say "food," "conversation" when we say "conduct" or "manner of life," and "meet" when we say "suitable." Such words as peradventure, concupiscence, lascivious, and ustowards are now simply archaic. If the Lord tarries long enough, someday the KJV will be completely like the Septuagint: it will an excellent translation written in a dead language with great historical/linguistic value, but which very few people can actually read. English is not a holy language and it"s not set in concrete; it changes from year to year. Go back before the King James to a Rheims-Douai or even a Wycliffe, and English gets harder and harder to understand. Chaucer is almost impossible to understand without marginal notes; Beowulf -- even though it's English! -- is as different from today's English as is Yiddish. We have to move our translations along with the language or we will be unable to reach the world for Christ. "