Archive for the ‘KJV 1611’ Category

ORIGINAL LANGUAGES

Friday, March 19th, 2010

A lot of folks make a big deal of the “original languages” (Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek) of the Bible. While we understand that God first gave His Word in Hebrew and Aramaic in the Old Testament and in Greek in the New Testament, God’s inspiration is not limited to those languages. Through inspiration (2 Timothy 3:16) and preservation (Psalm 12:6-7)   we can believe that God has preserved his inspired words in the English language with the King James Bible.  Many claim that a translation cannot be inspired.  That statement not only cannot be supported with Scripture but, in fact, can be refuted by Scripture.

In Acts 22 Paul gives a lengthy speech to the Jewish multitude in defense of his conversion and his call to the Gentiles. Luke, the writer of the book of Acts, records in Greek every word that Paul spoke.  But Paul didn’t give his speech in Greek, he gave it in Hebrew (Acts 21:40; 22:2).  So the original Greek is not the “original”, it is a translation from Hebrew!  The same thing is true of the conversation between the Lord and Paul on the road to Damascus in Acts 9.  Paul tells us in Acts 25:14 that the conversation was in Hebrew although Luke again wrote it in Greek.  So which is inspired, the Hebrew Paul actually spoke or the Greek recorded by Luke?  The answer is BOTH because “all scripture is given by inspiration of God” (2 Timothy 3:16).  The “original” and the “translation” are both inspired.  There are other Scriptural examples but these will suffice for now.

Why is this important?  There are two things that happen when someone elevates the “originals” to the detriment of the inspired translation.   First, by putting the emphasis on the “original language”, the man (or woman) in the pew is not getting anything to benefit them in everyday living.  For example, when the preacher gets all worked up over “agape” and “phileo” in John 21, he’s showing his ability to use Greek and missing the importance of the passage.  The person in the pew needs to learn from that text how he can be restored to fellowship with the Lord after sinning, not which kind of “love” is supposedly being referred to.

Secondly, the emphasis on “the original” tells the person in the pew that they can’t possibly understand the Word of God without a knowledge of the original languages or someone who can tell him what it says.  Here is one preacher’s personal testimony of that obvious truth:

“I did a lot of that when I first got out of seminary.  I used my knowledge of Greek and Hebrew in the  study and in the pulpit.  One day a woman wounded me with a compliment:  ‘I just love to hear you preach.  In fact, when I see the insights you get from the original languages, I realize that my  English Bible is hardly worth reading.’   I went home asking myself, What have I done?  I’m trying to get people into their Bibles, but I’ve taken this lady out of hers.”   (“Making a Difference in Preaching”, Haddon W. Robinson)

Reading and studying our English Bible will give us all the depth (and insight)  of the Word of God that we need.  If anything is worth knowing (and if it’s right) we’ll find it in our Bible.   You and I can read our English King James Bible with the complete assurance that it is just as much the Word of God (and the words of God) as the “original languages” were at their time.   “Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away.”  (Matthew 24:35)

Tags: , , ,
Posted in KJV 1611 | No Comments »

The King James Revisions

Tuesday, November 24th, 2009

I have been recently using a reprint of the original 1611 King James Bible in my daily reading.  New versions of the Bible are always claiming to be nothing more than “updates” of the old, poetic, Elizabethan English King James Version of 1611.  In their sales pitches they often refer to the fact that the 1611 KJB went through four “revisions” to get to what we hold in our hands today.  So, they claim, we aren’t using a 1611 King James Bible but a 1769 King James Bible.  Here are some things I’ve found in reading an “original” 1611:         

1.  I have had no problem reading the 1611 translation.  Yes, the words are spelled differently, and the type set is different, but the variations are not enough to hinder easy reading.                                 

2.  No words have been updated /modernized from 1611 to 1769, neither have any words been left out.

 3.  No verses have been shortened or omitted through the “revisions”. 

So in the 158 years from 1611 to 1769 the only changes are spelling, type set (from Gothic to Roman) and some capitalization (most notably the word “Church” [1611] to “church” [1769]).  In fact, the four “revisions” (more correctly called “editions”) of the 1611 King James Bible could be briefly described as thus:

                                    1. 1629  correction of earlier printing errors

                                    2.  1638 same as above

                                    3.  1762  standardization of spelling

                                    4.  1769  same as #3

When you look at the dates you see that this is actually just two “revisions” not four.  The correction of printing errors took two efforts to complete as did the standardization of spelling. So then from 1769 to present (240 years), with the above corrections of printing errors and standardization of spelling, there have been no changes whatsoever.

 Compare this to the multiple versions from the Revised Version of 1881 (the first English translation after the King James), to the American Standard Version of 1901, to the Revised Standard Version of 1951, to the New American Standard Version of 1971, to the  New International Version of 1977, to the English Standard Version of 2001, to The Message (an irreverent and blasphemous 2002 translation), and many others.  In them, words are drastically changed, and/or phrases are completely omitted (i.e. “through his blood”-Eph 1:7), and in some, sixteen verses completely disappear (Matt 17:21,18:11, 23:14; Mark 7:16, 9:44,46; 11:26, 15:28; Luke 17:36, 23:17; John 5:4; Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29; Romans 16:24).   That’s not revision, its robbery!

Tags: ,
Posted in KJV 1611 | No Comments »

At Calvary?

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Who doesn’t know that the place where the Lord Jesus was crucified for our sins was called “Calvary”? Many song writers obviously knew this: Calvary Covers It All, At Calvary, Burdens Are Lifted At Calvary, Lead Me To Calvary; as well as songs which refer to Calvary (Blessed Redeemer, Victory in Jesus, The Old Rugged Cross). But what is the source of the identification and name of this place? It is Luke 23:33, “And when they were come to the place, which is called Calvary, there they crucified him”. No problem, right? Do you realize that this is the only place in the Bible where the word “Calvary” appears? Still no problem though, God only has to say it once for it to be true!

Here’s the problem:  the only Bible that has the word “Calvary” in Luke 23:33 is the King James Bible.  Again, no problem….if you use a King James Bible.  But if you use ANY other Bible Version the word “Calvary” does not appear!  Do the people that use these other versions believe that Jesus died on Calvary?  Of course.  Do they realize that the Bible they are using has removed “Calvary” from the text?  NO.   ( The same thing is true of the only appearance of the name “Lucifer” in Isaiah 14:12; it’s in the King James, but no others.)

.

Tags: , ,
Posted in KJV 1611 | No Comments »

CASTING DOUBT

Friday, June 12th, 2009

I was recently studying Psalm 62 and was using a reference (commentary) by an author I turn to often. As is normal, we don’t agree on everything but I find his books helpful, especially in sermon structure and outline. Though he puts a strong emphasis on the King James Bible (a.k.a. Authorized Version) he does not believe it to be the infallible word of God, which is obvious in many instances. Let me produce here verse 3 and then show his comments:

“How long will ye imagine mischief against a man? Ye shall be slain all of you: as a bowing wall shall ye be, and as a tottering fence.”

This author then commented: “The Authorized Version prints much of that in italics, indicating that the translators had trouble with it and supplied a number of words to make up what they thought to be the sense. Rotherham renders the verse like this: “How long keep ye rushing at a man, continue crushing, all of you, as at a leaning wall, as at a bulging fence?”

This is disturbing for several reasons: one, the statement that the translators “supplied a number of words to make up what they thought to be the sense” would cause one to think that there were more than 5 out of 28 words in italics. Two, the five words in question refer to who is like a “bowing wall” and a “tottering fence”. In the King James Bible they are David’s enemies, in Rotherham they refer to David himself. Third, if the words in question are the five italicized words why change “bowing wall” to “leaning wall” and change “tottering fence” to “bulging fence” (not to mention “imagine mischief” to rushing at” and “slain” to “continue crushing”). Four, the context of the verse itself defines who is the “bowing wall” and “tottering fence” – “ye” (David’s enemies). Fifth, as usual this correction supposes that one man (Rotherham in this case) has the linguistic knowledge and spiritual insight to override the 47 translators of the King James Bible.

But the most upsetting thing about this is that it subjects the infallible words of the Living God to doubts and questions. Who’s right? Is anybody going to be slain or not? Who is the bowing/tottering wall and tottering/bulging fence? Unintentionally, this author has cast doubt upon the word of God. If this were a rare thing it wouldn’t be worth mentioning but this is done throughout the Bible a multitude of times by multitudes of authors and is always disheartening.

“The words of the Lord are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O Lord, thou shat preserve them from this generation for ever.” Psalm 12:6-7

Tags:
Posted in KJV 1611 | No Comments »

Are All Bibles the Same?

Monday, May 18th, 2009

A very common incorrect statement made by many people in our day is that all Bibles are the same.  They claim that the only difference between the old King James Bible and the newer, modern translations is the updating of “archaic” words.  Lets look at Zechariah 13:6 to see if this is all there is to it:

King James Version (1611)

And one shall say unto him, What are these wounds in thine hands? Then he shall answer, Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends.

This verse is obviously a prophetic reference to the 2nd Advent when the Lord Jesus Christ will appear to the nation of Israel and identify Himself to them by the wounds in his hands. If anything, “thine” would be the “archaic” word but that’s not all that is changed!

Living Bible (1971)

And if someone asks, ‘Than what are these scars on your chest and your back?’ he will say, ‘I got into a brawl at the home of a friend’.

New American Standard Bible (1971)

And one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds between your arms?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends’.

New International Version (1978)

If someone asks him, ‘What are these wounds on your body?’ he will answer, ‘The wounds I was given at the house of my friends’.

English Standard Version (2001)

And if one will say to him, ‘What are these wounds on your back?’ Then he will say, ‘Those with which I was wounded in the house of my friends’.

The Message (2002)

And if someone says, ‘And so where did you get that black eye?’ They’ll say, I ran into a door at a friends house’.

It doesn’t take an expert in anatomy to see that something is really wrong here. And this change does effect a doctrine of the Bible: the doctrine of the 2nd Advent of Christ. All Bibles are NOT the same!

Tags:
Posted in KJV 1611 | 1 Comment »