My purpose in writing this essay is NOT to tear down or destroy the King James translation, or to engage in a debate over whether it is the only valid translation. My purpose is to explain why it is not used exclusively in these essays. If you believe that the AV 1611 King James translation is correct for you - GREAT! Go ahead and use it. I will not use it exclusively in the essays just for your benefit, however. The reasons why follow.
If a given translation - any translation - is to be "better" than another, it should therefore lead those who use it to a fuller experience with the Lord Jesus Christ. Their lives should exhibit more Christlike behavior, as a whole, than believers who use other "less correct" versions. Sadly, this has not been the case. There is a group, I am almost tempted to call them a cult, that exalts the 1611 KJV to a level I would almost call worship. Characteristics of this group are:
Yes, I have just been blown off by yet another supposed BROTHER in Christ with that scripture. I will let YOU be the judge as to whether he is more Christlike, or am I (and therefore which translation of the Bible bears better fruit).
"So called Christian Rock is of the Devil and blasphemous. I see you have your cause and a NIV and NASB that backup it up. Scholarship is your God. Listen sonny. I know Greek and manuscript evidence and I have a English Bible that is God's Holy Word. I am not going to waist one minute of my time debating with you over this. There is no debate. You are messing with God's Word and you will pay at the judgment seat, if your a Christian.
These are your Christian Rockers, Yea.... I have land in the Florida Everglades to sell you. Now your persecuted for your clause, go blow your horn.
In Love for the Cause of Christ" (name withheld, the typos are HIS, not mine)
Some notes about this tirade:
I did write back a gracious email to him. I am not holding my breath for a response.
Jesus himself told his disciples on many occasions that the greatest law is love. I have read some pretty unloving things coming out of others in the KJV only crowd. Not just about the KJV Bible, but also about other topics, such as different denominations, worship styles, and musical styles (hence the reason why these Christian Rock Apologetics essays have to exist). They claim to be guardians of spiritual integrity, defenders of the faith, the only ones who use the true and inspired word of God. I have different names for them: prideful, puffed up in their own knowledge, arrogant, and bigoted.
In their zeal to defend their pet issues, they have decided that not only LOVE, but TRUTH take a second seat to their agenda. I have documented numerous places in their essays where they openly attempt to confuse facts, make the casual reader assume that they were talking about a Christian rock artist when in fact they were describing a secular artist, etc. Deception and lies come from SATAN, not the Lord. There is no place for either in a Christian ministry. God is TRUTH, not the father of lies.
Want proof of their arrogance? They will not even acknowledge or read these essays, because I do not use their approved translation. HOW SAD! Maybe they could LEARN SOMETHING - like their own mistakes, maybe?
Want even more proof of their arrogance? Some of them say openly that the King James version alone, written in old english is the only God honoring language to address deity. Therefore, to use a translation that doesn't address God as "Thee and Thou," offends God and men. WHAT A PITIFUL PERVERSION of the truth of God! To say that Jesus himself did not have the right to save the thief on the cross, because the thief did not address him as "thee" or "thou". Just merely "Jesus". I think God hears the prayers of the pitiful prostitute in the street that falls on her knees asking for forgiveness in street English a lot more readily than he does the pompous, puffed up prayers of the KJV only HYPOCRITES!!! I have heard their public prayers - trying to sound "Holier" by spouting off more and more old English gibberish! Not a shred of sincerity in their voice. Or love in their heart.
STILL MORE proof! When all else fails - the KJV only people resort to name calling. They invent an imaginary conspiracy theory, and everybody who disagrees with them is accused of conspiring with satan to steal the true word of God away from you. Paranoia reigns ---- But, the roots of this paranoia run VERY deep. Even the ones making this ridiculous claim may not even be aware that they, themselves are in league with satan, and men he influenced centuries ago.
The "acceptable" Greek manuscripts fall into a general category called "Byzantine". Greek manuscripts that the KJV people do not like fall into an "Alexandrian" category. Why Alexandria? Why the mistrust of translations that come from there? Alexandria today is a minor city in Egypt. At one time, however, it was much larger - and a crossroads where cultures of Europe and Asia met and generally tolerated each other. From time to time, however, they clashed - violently. Unfortunately, the introduction of Christianity did not help. Those who were charged with sharing the new faith in the city (where it could have helped the two sides understand and love each other) were not truly Christians. They were barbarians who were more concerned with their own prominence than in the cause of Jesus Christ. When they were not received with the honor they thought was their right, they resorted to violence to try to convert the city. By far the worst of the reprobates was Cyril - who was responsible for the bloody murder of the brilliant scholar Hypatia. The learning and science of the ancient world was viewed with suspicion and disdain. Anything Alexandrian was suspected of being influenced by pagan culture. Therefore - Greek manuscripts that were Alexandrian in nature were also viewed with suspicion.
One very obvious fallacy of this type of thinking that the KJV advocates ignore: Jesus' own father and mother saw Egypt as a place of safety and tolerance, and fled there with their infant Jesus to avoid Herod's decree. Certainly if Egypt was an evil place, God would have intervened to keep Jesus away from there at all costs! Herod had soldiers all over the land - Joseph and Mary almost certainly would have fled by boat - and Egypt's main port city was Alexandria, the cultural crossroads of the ancient world!
KJV advocates who do not trust Alexandrian (Egyptian) things, read the following verses out of your own translation:
Alexandria would have made an excellent place for the young Jesus to receive the best education available in ancient times. We have no record of how long He lived in Egypt, but it may have been as long as 12 years. Remember that Egypt is also where the infant Moses found safety, and the young Moses received his education. The influence of Egypt was strong in Moses - he used many phrases and concepts from the Egyptian "Book of Dead" in the books he contributed to the Word of God.
Another question for KJV advocates: WHY would God permit portions of the Egyptian "Book of the Dead" to be in the divinely inspired first five books of the Bible - if Egyptian writing was evil? See the "Hymn to Osiris" translation in my Michael W. Smith essay if you don't believe me. Obviously God was trying to reveal himself to the Egyptians, but their priests could not understand the complete revelation He was trying to give them. Moses (quite rightly) saw the divine inspiration in earlier writings, and took the divinely inspired portions to insert in his own.
Yes - ERRORS!!!!!! Enquivocably, absolutely - no arguments possible. Want my examples? Glad you asked, happy to oblige you! Coming right up!
How many of you KJV fans actually OWN a 1611 Bible? Or at least a very accurate reproduction? I didn't think so. Those two pictures above could have come from just about anywhere in the 1611 KJV. I don't think more examples of spelling errors are necessary! But believe it or not, not all of the spelling errors above are real errors. For one thing, old English did not have a "J". So the spelling of "Iesus" is correct. Your King James Bible have any "J's" in it? Then you are ALREADY reading an interpretation, not an original "authorized" version. NO EXCUSES!!!! If the 1611 version was inspired by the Holy Spirit you are to make NO CHANGES WHATSOEVER to the spelling, grammer, letter usage, even the punctuation! Yes, I know that the "inspired" and "authorized" text was changed many times to make the KJV you read today. But that is cheating!!! The chief opponent of Christian Rock music that I quote here calls themselves "AV1611.org". That means no compromises, folks. Your Bible has to look like the above, or it is of the DEVIL (according to them).
So, in your daily Bible readings, you better be ready to not only try to figure out what the archaic language is saying, but you now have to worry about whether the author meant "I" or "J", "U" or "V", whether there should be one "E" or two, one "O" or two, etc. This could lead to a lot of trouble. When God appeared to Moses in the buring bush, did he say "I am that I am", "Jam that Jam!" (endorsing rap music????) When "Iesus" appeared before his sanhedren judges, did he say "I am", or was he asking for a biscuit with "Jam" on it? It had been a while since the last supper -----. (I am poking some good natured fun at the AV 1611 KJV people here - couldn't resist!). Various places in the 1611 KJV, is it "moon" or "mon" (black Carribean slang for "man")? Is it "He" or "Hee" - as in hee hee hee (laughter)?!
|Reference(s)||KJV translates||Textus Receptus actually says||Comments|
|Acts 19:37||"robbers of churches."||"robbers of temples"||Every known Greek manuscript has HIEROSULOUS, "robbers of temples"|
|Is 14:12||"Lucifer"||"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|
|Acts 12:4||"Easter"||"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!|
|(entire New Testament) Acts 2:38; 22:16||"Baptism"||"immersion"||sprinkling was the mode of baptism in 1611 AD, they jelly-fished out and transliterated the Greek "baptizo" but refused to translate it.|
|Lk 18:12||"Tithes of all I possess"||"all I acquire"||Not only variant with the TR, but quite wrong. Tithes were never paid on capital, only increase|
|Gal 3:24||"Schoolmaster"||"attendant"||the law was the one who brought us to Christ, not taught us about Christ|
|1Sam 10:24, 2Sam 16:16, 1Kings 1:25||"God save the King"||"May the king live"||"God" not in TR, but reflects the British culture of the 1600's.|
|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||"God Forbid||"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.|
|Lev 6:21; 8:28; 17:6; 23:18||"sweet savour"||"soothing aroma"||KJV appeals to wrong senses - taste instead of smell in the TR|
|1 Kings 20:38||"ashes upon his face"||"bandage over his eyes"||KJV varies from TR by using ashes|
|Matthew 23:24||strain at a gnat and swallow a camel||strain out a gnat and swallow a camel|
I have some questions for the KJV only crowd:
From the book James I by Otto F. Scott published by Mason/Charter 1976:
Carr's ascendancy came with a rush, however, for which the English were not prepared. They knew the king's leaning toward handsome young men and were not naive about its meaning. But James had kept his tendencies under at least quasi-control for many years and had not succumbed completely to his inclinations since the days of Esme' Stuart. Since then he had married and fathered three living children and had played the role of family man with some success. Suddenly, at the age of forty-one, he relapsed completely; openly succumbed to homosexuality and fell in love with a nineteen-year-old youth of no great intelligence. [page 306]
Meanwhile, he enjoyed his court, and Carr. His new favorite was perfect for him in every way-including a capacity for bisexuality. James liked men who liked women; he was not jealous of their heterosexual affairs. On the contrary, he enjoyed hearing details; they seemed to help convince him of women's inferiority. [Page 311]
From The Wisest Fool in Christendom by William McElwee published by Harcourt, Brace and Co., we read a letter King James wrote to Somerset. It was over 2000 words long. Here is a small portion of it:
I leave out of this reckoning your long creeping back and withdrawing yourself from lying in my chamber, notwithstanding my many hundred times earnestly soliciting you to the contrary, accounting that but a point of unkindness. [Page 216]
When King James wanted something for one of his "male favorites," all means were lawful to him. In 1607 Carr was the king's pet. In Jacobean Pageant on page 179 we read:
Young Carr was mounting the ladder and not yet scornful of the base means by which he did ascend. Progressively the vista of honours opened before him. In the closing days of 1607 he was appointed a Gentleman of the Bedchamber and knighted. Early in 1608 he received the King's portrait mounted in gold and diamonds. In January 1609 King James taking advantage of a scribe's ommission of a phrase from a legal document, deprived Sir Walter Raleigh of his estate of Sherborne in Dorset and gave it to his young Scot. Feeling ran high against his act. Lady Raleigh went on her knees before the King and begged to be spared this much out of her husband's ruin, but James, muttering 'I maun have the land, I maun have it for Carr,' refused her. In 1610 Carr benefited from another man's ruin and received the forfeited Scottish estates of Lord Maxwell.
King James, although he didn't have a penny to put into his own Bible, had great lusts for castles, gifts for his "favorites," and extremely extravagant parties. He was always borrowing money and accumulated a great debt. This debt could be paid if he could get his son Prince Charles married off to the Spanish Infanta. Her dowry was worth between 600,000 to 1,000,000 pounds. Below is an account of what this marriage would have cost England and the Protestant cause taken from the book James I by Otto F. Scott:
The Vatican, drawn against its will but fascinated by the possibilities inherent in the situation, finally issued its demands upon England; all Catholics were to be free to their beliefs and relieved of any oaths to the English king; all children of the marriage were to be raised in the Vatican faith from the age of twelve. The demand was a virtual ultimatum that the English king dismiss the laws of his realm at the order of the Vatican. By May 1623 Olivares and Buckingham had exchanged hard words and were no longer speaking. The Prince of Wales (King James's son), however, had not been trained to argue. He said he and his father would set aside the laws of England and sign the articles. [Page 398]
The marriage negotiations eventually collapsed.
To be perfectly fair to King James, I read the other side's defense of him. Their evidence to the contrary is based on a dispute between King James and and Antony Weldon:
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon, had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James that Weldon saw his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously, James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
My response to this is that even if the quotes above had all come from Weldon, there is no way to change the letter that King James himself wrote. Those were King James' own words, not Weldon's.
Also - there is a tremendous bias against homosexuals in the present fundamentalist church. While homosexuality is a sin, and has been recognized as sin by the church - it did not carry nearly the stigma in King James' time that it does today. King James era was one of arranged marriages amoung nobility and especially among royalty. This was the primary method of establishing political alliances. Love seldom, if ever, entered into the equation. This was bound to lead to much sexual frustration, yet a king such as James would not dare jeopardize his political alliances by having adulterous relationships with women. Homosexuality was an almost inevitable result - because it was a way of not only satisfying sexual desires, but of establishing even more alliances! Homosexuality is very common in the history of most royal families. An accusation of homosexuality against King James would have hardly raised an eyebrow in that era. With little nothing to gain - why would Weldon make such an statement, unless it was true?
An interesting (and disturbing) sideline to the above - I have seen more than one conservative ministry call for a return to arranged marriages as an alternative to dating, which they consider evil. How sad! Don't we ever learn from mistakes?
Another argument they use in defense of King James is a paranoid one:
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in 1605. In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children, re-establishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other conspirators were caught and hanged. It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of King James join an unholy lot.
Notice, here, the language "perfect English Bible". Oh brother - if you can call that junk above perfect, you need some serious spelling lessons - starting with first grade!
More seriously, this passage shows a definite anti-Catholic bigotry, which is also a common theme in Christian rock critics. To anti-Catholic bigots: IT IS POSSIBLE TO BE CATHOLIC AND SAVED, although recent developments within the Catholic church lead to to recommend its members abandon it. I have known many, and they have treated me like a Christian brother as well as demonstrating true Biblical knowlege. The Roman Catholic church is not perfect, however. In my Hypatia essay, I document how intolerance for opposing views led one of its leaders to commit one of the most brutal murders of all time. I also show there how the latest Catechism SAYS THAT MOSLEMS ARE SAVED, and how the Catholic church ENDORSED THE RELIGION OF THE COMING ANTI-CHRIST!
Official biography of King James I, from Brittania.com
James also disliked the Puritans who became excessive in their demands on the king, resulting in the first wave of English immigrants to North America. James, however, did manage to commission an Authorized Version of the Bible, printed in English in 1611.
The relationship between king and Parliament steadily eroded. Extravagant spending (particularly on James' favorites), inflation and bungled foreign policies discredited James in the eyes of Parliament. Parliament flatly refused to disburse funds to a king who ignored their concerns and were annoyed by rewards lavished on favorites and great amounts spent on decoration. James awarded over 200 peerages (landed titles) as, essentially, bribes designed to win loyalty, the most controversial of which was his creation of George Villiers (his closest advisor and homosexual partner) as Duke of Buckingham. Buckingham was highly influential in foreign policy, which failed miserably. James tried to kindle Spanish relations by seeking a marriage between his son Charles and the Spanish Infanta (who was less than receptive to the clumsy overtures of Charles and Buckingham), and by executing Sir Walter Raleigh at the behest of Spain.
The Roman Catholic attempt at assassination was ample evidence that this pope was not perfect, certainly not acting in perfect accordance with God's will. But it obviously had more to do with Henry the 8th's establishment of the church of England than it did with an English Bible. The English Bible was just one more irritation to them. Actually, the Roman Catholic church was using a fairly accurate Bible, the Latin Vulgate 1, 2, 3, done by the scholarly Jerome. Although there were epochs when the Bible was a "forbidden book" by the Roman Catholic church, this was not one. Their desire was for people to become educated, learn Latin, and read the Bible. The Latin vulgate translation was their "authorized version", a sentiment the 1611 King James advocates can certainly identify with. The Roman Catholic fear was identical to the alarm of the King James only advocated - a fear of newer translations that contradict older and more established translations. They had little to fear, the King James translators included all of the Roman Catholic doctrines in their translation. It even included the Apocrypha! 1611 KJV advocates - does your Bible contain the Apocrypha?
Yes, I know the other translations do, too. That is the reason why I do not recommend any one translation. Don't email me your lists! Nevertheless, I AM talking about the King James translation here. Quick - KJV advocates: what is the definition of the following words?
|Agone||1 Sam. 30:13||Alamoth||1 Chron. 15:20|
|Almug||1 Kings 10:11-12||Ambassage||Luke 14:32|
|Ambushment||1 Chron. 13:13||Amerce||Deut. 22:19|
|Anon||Matt. 13:20; Mark 1:30||Ariel||Isa. 29:1,2,7|
|Armhole||Jer. 38:12||Artificer||1 Chron. 29:5|
|Assupim||1 Chron. 26:15,16||Asswage||Job 16:5|
|Astonied||Ezra 9:4||Attent||2 Chron. 6:40; 7:15|
|Aul||Exo. 21:6||Bald Locust||Lev. 11:22|
|Bason||2 Chron. 4:8; Exo. 24:6||Beeves||Lev. 22:19; Num. 31:28|
|Bekah||Exo. 38:26||Besom||Isa. 14:23|
|Bestead||Isa. ;8:21||Betimes||Gen. 26:31; Job 8:5|
|Bewray||Isa. 16:3; Prov. 29:24||Bittern||Isa. 34:11; Zeph. 2:14|
|Blain||Exo. 9:9,10||Bloody Flux||Acts 28:8|
|Bolled||Exo. 9:31||Bondman||Gen. 44:33|
|Bray||Job 6:5; Prov. 27:22||Breeches||Exo. 38:42; Lev. 16:4|
|Brigandine||Jer. 46:4||Broidered||Ezek. 16:10; Exo. 28:4|
|Bruit||Jer. 10:22; Nahum 3:19||Buckler||2 Sam. 22:31; Song 4:4|
|Burning Ague||Lev. 26:16||Cab||2 Kings 6:25|
|Calamus||Ezek. 27:19; Exo. 30:23||Calves of our lips||Hos. 14:2|
|Camphire||Song of Sol. 1:14; 4:13||Cankerworm||Joel 1:4; Nahum 3:15|
|Carbuncle||Exo. 28:17; Ezek. 28:13||Cassia||Exo. 30:24; Psalm 45:8|
|Cast in the teeth||Matt. 27:44||Caul||Isa. 3:18; Lev. 3:4|
|Censer||2 Chron. 26:19; Luke 1:9||Chalcedony||Rev. 21:19|
|Chalkstone||Isa. 27:9||Chamberlain||Acts 12:20|
|Chapiter||1 Kings 7:16-18||Chapmen||2 Chron. 9:14|
|Chapt||Jer. 14:4||Checker Work||1 Kings 7:17|
|Cheek Teeth||Joel 1:6||Chemosh||1 Kings 11:7; 2 Kings 3:27|
|Choler||Dan. 8:7; 11:11||Churl||Isa. 32:5,7|
|Ciel||Jer. 22:14||Clave||Ruth 1:14|
|Clift||Exo. 33:32||Cockatrice||Jer. 8:17|
|Cocle||Job 31:40||Collop||Job 15:27|
|Concision||Phil. 3:2||Concupiscence||Rom. 7:8; Col. 3:5|
|Coney||Lev. 11:5||Contemn||Psalm 10:13|
|Cor||Ezek. 45:14||Corban||Mark 7:11|
|Coulter||1 Sam. 13:20,21||Countervail||Esth. 7:4|
|Creeping Thing||Gen. 1:26||Crisping Pin||Isa. 3:22|
|Crookbackt||Lev. 21:20||Cruse||1 Sam. 26:11; 1 Kings 14:3|
|Cumi||Mark 5:41||Curious Arts||Acts 19:19|
|Dulcimer||Dan. 3:5, 10, 15||Emerods||Deut. 28:27|
|Endamage||Ezra 4:13||Endue||Gen. 30:20; 2 Chron. 2:12|
|Ensample||Phil. 3:17; 2 Pet. 2:6||Ensign||Isa. 11:12; Zech. 9:16|
|Ephah||Lev. 5:11; Ezek. 45:11||Ephod||Exo. 28:6-12|
|Ephphata||Mark 7:34||Espouse||2 Sam. 3:14; Matt. 1:18|
|Euroclydon||Acts 27:14||Exactor||Isa. 60:17|
|Extreme Burning||Deut. 28:22||Eyeservice||Col. 3:22; Eph. 6:6|
|Fain||Job 27:22; Luke 15:16||Familiar Friend||Job 19:14; Psalm 41:9|
|Familiar Spirit||2 Kings 23:24||Fatling||1 Sam. 15:9; Isa. 11:6|
|Fen||Job 40:21||Fillet||Exo. 27:10,11|
|Fining Pot||Prov. 17:3; 27:21||Firkin||John 2:6|
|Fitch||Isa. 28:25, 27||Flagon||Isa. 22:24|
|Fleshhook||Exo. 27:3||Fleshpot||Exo. 16:3|
|Flote||2 Chron. 2:16||Footman||1 Sam. 22:17; Jer. 12:5|
|Foreship||Acts 27:30||Foursquare||Exo. 27:1; Rev. 21:16|
|Fowler||Psalm 91:3; Hos. 9:8||Fray||Deut. 28:26; Jer. 7:33|
|Freckled Spot||Lev. 13:39||Frontlet||Exo. 13:16; Deut. 6:8|
|Gabbatha||John 19:13||Galbanum||Exo. 30:34|
|Gall||Job 15:13; 20:25; Matt. 27:34||Gallant Ship||Isa. 33:21|
|Gat||1 Kings 1:1; Eccl. 2:8||Gerah||Lev. 27:25|
|Gin||Amos 3:5; Psalm 141:9||Girt||2 Kings 1:8; John 21:7|
|Glede||Deut. 14:13||Glister||1 Chron. 39:2; Luke 9:29|
|Graff||Rom. 11:17, 19, 23, 24||Greaves||1 Sam. 17:6|
|Grisled||Gen. 31:10; Zech. 6:3||Habergeon||Exo. 28:32; 2 Chron. 26:14|
|Haft||Judg. 3:22||Hale||Luke 12:58; Acts 8:3|
|Handbreadth||Exo. 37:12; 1 Kings 7:26||Handstaves||Ezek. 39:9|
|Hap||Ruth 2:3||Haply||Mark 11:13; Acts 5:39|
|Hart||Deut. 12:15; Isa. 35:6||Hasty Fruit||Isa. 28:4|
|Havock||Acts 8:3||Heath||Jer. 17:6|
|Heave Offering||Num. 18:8||Heave Shoulder||Lev. 10:14|
|Higgaion||Psalm 9:16||Hindmost||Num. 2:31|
|Hoar Frost||Exo. 16:14; Psalm 147:16||Hoar||Isa. 46:4|
|Hoary||Job 41:32||Hoise||Acts 27:40|
|Holpen||Dan. 11:34; Luke 1:54||Horseleach||Prov. 30:15|
|Hosen||Dan. 3:21||Hough||Josh. 11:6, 9; 2 Sam. 8:4|
|Hungerbitten||Job 18:12||Husbandry||1 Cor. 3:9|
|Ill Savour||Joel 2:20||Implead||Acts 19:38|
|Inclosing||Exo. 28:20||Infolding||Ezek. 1:4|
|Jacinth||Rev. 21:20||Jah||Psalm 68:4|
|Jeopard||Judg. 5:18||Jod||1 Chron. 22:3|
|Jubile||Lev. 25:8-17||Kerchief||Ezek. 13:18,21|
|Kine||1 Sam. 6:10,12,14; Amos 4:1||Kneadingtrough||Exo. 8:3: 12:34|
|Knop||Exo. 25:31, 34, 36.; 1 Kings 6:18||Lade||Gen. 47:17; 1 Kings 12:11|
|Lancet||1 Kings 18:28||Lapwing||Lev. 11:19; Deut. 14:18|
|Latchet||Isa. 5:278; Mark 1:7||Latter Rain||Deut. 11:14; Zech. 10:1|
|Laver||Exo. 31:9; 1 Kings 7:40, 43||Leviathan||Psalm 74:14; Isa. 27:1; Job 41:1|
|Libertines||Acts 6:9||Lien||Gen. 26:10; Psalm 68:13|
|Lign Aloes||Num. 24:6||Lily Work||1 Kings 7:19, 22|
|Lintel||Exo. 12:22,23; Amos 9:1||Lowring||Matt. 16:3|
|Lucre||1 Sam. 8:2; 1 Tim. 3:3,8||Magnifical||1 Chron. 22:5|
|Malefactor||Luke 23:32,33; John 18:30||Mallow||Job 30:4|
|Mammon||Matt. 6:24; Luke 16:11,13||Manch||Ezek. 45:12|
|Mandrake||Gen. 30:14-16||Maschil||Psalm 32 (Title)|
|Maw||Deut. 18:3||Mete||Exo. 16:18; Isa. 40:12|
|Meteyard||Lev. 19:35||Michtam||Psalm 16,56-60 (in title)|
|Milcom||1 Kings 11:5, 33; 2 Kings 23:13||Mincing||Isa. 3:16|
|Minish||Psalm 107:39; Exo. 5:19||Mitre||Zech. 3:5|
|Muffler||Isa. 3:19||Murrian||Exo. 9:3|
|Musick||1 Sam. 18:6; Luke 15:25||Naught||Prov. 20:14; 2 Kings 2:19|
|Necromancer||Deut. 18:11||Neesing||Job 41:18|
|Nehushtan||2 Kings 18:4||Nergal||2 Kings 17:30|
|Nether||Deut. 24:6; Job 41:24||Nethermost||1 Kings 6:6|
|Nethinim||1 Chron. 9:2; Ezra 7:7||Nitre||Prov. 25:20; Jer. 2:22|
|Noisome||Psalm 91:3; Ezek. 14:21||Oblation||Lev. 2:4,12; Ezek. 45:1|
|Occurrent||1 Kings 5:4||Offscouring||Lamen. 3:45; I Cor. 4:13|
|Omega||Rev. 1:8, 11||Omer||Exo. 16:16, 18, 22|
|Onycha||Exo. 30:34||Ossifrage||Lev. 11:13; Deut. 14:12|
|Outwent||Mark 6:33||Overlive||Josh. 24:31|
|Overpast||Psalm 57:1; Isa. 26:20||Palmerworm||Joel 1:4; 2:25; Amos 4:9|
|Pannag||Ezek. 27:17||Parbar||1 Chron. 26:18|
|Pence||Mark 14:5; Matt. 18:28||Penury||Prov. 14:23; Luke 21:4|
|Peradventure||Gen. 24:39; Rom. 5:7||Phylacteries||Deut. 11:13-22|
|Plaister||Dan. 5:5; Lev. 13:43,48||Plaiting||1 Pet. 3:3|
|Plat||2 Kings 9:26||Pommel||2 Chron. 4:12|
|Potsherd||Prov. 26:23; Isa. 45:9||Pottage||Gen. 25:29,30,34; 2 Kings 4:38|
|Pourtray||Ezek. 4:1; 8:10||Pransing||Judg. 5:22; Nahum 3:2|
|Pressfat||Hag. 2:16||Privily||1 Sam. 24:4; Gal. 2:4|
|Propitiation||Rom. 3:25; 1 John 2:2; 4:10||Proselyte||Matt. 23:15; Acts 2:10|
|Provender||Gen. 42:27; Isa. 30:24||Pruninghook||Isa. 2:4; Joel 3:10; Micah 4:3|
|Psaltery||1 Sam. 10:5; Psalm 144;9||Publican||Matt. 9:11; Luke 18:10; 19:2|
|Pur||Esth. 3:7; 9:24||Purifying Sores||Isa. 1:6|
|Purrim||Esth. 9:21-32||Purtenance||Exo. 12:9|
|Pygarg||Deut. 14:5||Quarternion||Acts 12:4|
|Rainment||Gen. 45:22||Rampart||Lamen. 2:8; Nahum 3:8|
|Ravening||Psalm 22:13; Matt. 7:15||Ravin||Gen. 49:27; Nahum 2:12|
|Redound||2 Cor. 4:15||Remphan||Acts 7:43|
|Rereward||Num. 10:25; 1 Sam. 29:2||Ribband||Num. 15:38|
|Rie||Exo. 9:32; Isa. 28:25||Ringstraked||Gen. 39:35,39,40|
|Roe||Isa. 13:14||Ruddy||1 Sam. 16:12|
|Sackbut||Dan. 3:5||Sackcloth||Gen. 37:34; 2 Kings 19:1|
|Satyr||Isa. 13:21; 34:14||Savour||Lev. 26:31; Matt. 16:23|
|Scabbard||Jer. 47:6||Scall||Lev. 13:30-37; 14:54|
|Scrabble||1 Sam. 21:13||Seethe||2 Kings 4:38; Job 41:20|
|Selvedge||Exo. 26:4; 36:11||Servitor||2 Kings 4:43|
|Sheaf||Gen. 37:7; Deut. 24:19||Sheepcote||2 Sam. 7:8; 1 Chron. 17:7|
|Sheminith||1 Chron. 15:21; Psa 6 (title)||Sherd||Isa. 30:14; Ezek. 23:34|
|Shewbread||1 Sam. 21:6; 1 Chron. 9:32||Shibboleth||Judg. 12:6|
|Shigionoth||Habbakkuk 3:1||Shittah Tree||Isa. 41:19|
|Silverling||Isa. 7:23||Sith||Ezek. 35:6|
|Snuffdish||Exo. 25:38; 37:23; Num. 4:9||Snuffers||1 Kings 7:50; 2 Chron. 4:22|
|Sodden||Exo. 12:9; 1 Sam. 2:15||Sodpdoiler||Judg. 2:14; 1 Sam. 13:17|
|Sojourn||Judg. 19:16; Isa. 52:4||Sottish||Jer. 4:22|
|Spikenard||Mark 14:3; John 12:3||Stacte||Exo. 30:34|
|Stomacher||Isa. 3:24||Strake||Gen. 30:37; Lev. 14:37|
|Suborn||Acts 6:11||Succor||2 Sam. 8:5; 18:3; Heb. 2:18|
|Sunder||Job 41:17||Suppliant||Zeph. 3:10|
|Surfeiting||Luke 21:34||Sycamine||Luke 17:6|
|Sycomore||Amos 7:14||Taber||Nah. 2:7|
|Tache||Exo. 26,11; 36:13,18||Trow||Luke 17:9|
|Unction||1 John 2:20||Victual||Exo. 12:39|
|Visage||Dan. 3:19||Void place||1 Kings 22:10|
|Wen||Lev. 22:22||Wheaten||Exo. 29:2|
|Whelp||2 Sam. 17:8; Ezek. 19:3||Wimple||Isa. 3:22|
|Winefat||Isa. 63:2; Mark 12:1||Wist||Josh. 8:14; Mark 9:6|
|Wot||Gen. 39:8; Rom. 11:2||Wreathen||Exo. 28:14; 39:15; 2 Kings 25:27|
Say - WHAT???? That was my reaction, too, when I saw this list. I pared it down a bit from the original source which listed 436, but some were duplicates, proper names, or words that I understood quite well. The bottom line here is that King James Bible is an excellent Early Modern English (as opposed to Old English) translation. The problem for the KJV advocates is that language is a dynamic entity, constantly changing. 400 years is a long time to freeze a language. The Roman Catholics managed to do it for 1500 years with the Latin Vulgate Bible, but only because the Latin language died with the Roman Empire. It was therefore possible to standardize it in a way you cannot do with a living language like English.
What is needed for English speaking people is exactly what is happening - newer English translations. Even the KJV has been revised from the the original 1611 text, ending with the version you probably own. Again I point out - if the 1611 version was inspired, there cannot be even the smallest deviation from its text in any way!!! But the KJV advocates ignore the fact that their own version was under constant revision for a century and a half, and that process should have continued as the English language changed. Otherwise you end up with the mess above. Anybody got an Early Modern English dictionary???
They spoke Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek (for the most part). The ONLY inspired writings were those of the original authors. Their writings have been copied over the years. Extraordinary care was usually used in transcribing important works, but human beings are not Xerox machines. There have been subtle changes that have crept into the text over time. As the KJV advocates are quick to point out, there are NO original manuscripts available, although there are very early copies - particularly of Paul's letters. God has not chosen to preserve originals. I think there is a very good reason:
He wants us to worship HIM, and not a physical book, scroll, or piece of paper.
The Roman Catholic church has a long history of this. Various artifacts are stored and venerated as "Holy". They are trotted out on special occasions to display to the faithful. The rest of the time they are locked away from all human contact. Some of them are pretty gross - body parts of saints, etc. These artifacts have, in effect, become objects of WORSHIP in themselves! How sad it would be to have the original manuscripts of the Bible relegated to that status - and never being read.
The KJV advocates have a marvellous little set of prooftexts to prove that God does not respect original manuscripts of the Bible. Of course they use it to prove we should trust the King James version. But I think they also prove my point - that God has decided that subtle copying and translation errors in His word are preferable to "icon status".
To see the importance God puts on original manuscripts, study several chapters in the book of Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning the roll that Jeremiah had written.
In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by his servant Jehudi.
According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the hearth until it was destroyed.
Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!
Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)
Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.
We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45-51 where it is reproduced for our benefit.
Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon. (Jeremiah 51:59-61) Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!
Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!
But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51. Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2 which we can only call ORIGINAL #3!
So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize the "originals".
- Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second" original, or ORIGINAL #3.
- Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly unscriptural.
Bravo KJV advocates!!! You have proved my point, at least. God has chosen to allow subtle changes to accumulate in His word over the years due to human error. Of course, they left out a very important manuscript - the stone tablets God's finger literally wrote on. Moses smashed them. The replacements, however, became icons for a time, just as I described. They ended up in the Ark of the Covenant - never to be read again!
Of course, there are no originals to iconize (or worship). Fortunately. But - the farther back you go in time, the closer you get to error free translations. If I had my choice of reading a KJV Bible, or a copy of a letter done by one of Paul's scribes in 80 AD, the copy from 80 AD would be a more reliable source. PERIOD! I would, of course, have to be able to read Greek, and an archaic version of Greek at that. I actually know a man who loves the word of God so much he majored in Greek for 5 years in college, getting a Master's Degree in Greek. I respect him a lot more than I do the KJV zealots. If they really loved the word of God as much as they say, they would persue it no matter what the cost.
The moment the Bible was translated from its original languages, much was lost. Shades of meaning in word, cultural perspectives, and the like. A translated work is only a reflection of the original, at best. The King James version is a translation of a Greek Bible that was written about the same time. The Greek bible used was actually completed AFTER the King James Bible. The sections that were not complete were filled in with translations from the Latin Vulgate version. So portions of the King James are translations of translations (2nd generation). We can do better today, having the benefit of access to ALL existing manuscripts. This is something even the most well intentioned translator did not have 400 years ago. There was no electronic means of remotely examining, and travel was slow and dangerous. It is possible for translators today to wade through vast quatities of original manuscripts to make the most logical conclusion as to the true meaning when conflicts occur. In terms of resources, today's translators win hands down.
Over five thousand manuscripts, including several from as early as the third century, are available to textual critics today. Some of these include virtually the entire Bible, while others contain only certain books, or groups of books of the Bible. Some are mere fragments. Such extensive manuscript evidence contributes to the ability of modern textual critics to present us with a reliable text of God's word.
Translators work with compilations of these manuscripts. These compilations represent the efforts of men to weed out the errors (interpolations, omissions, and substitutions) of each individual manuscript by comparing various manuscripts, and arrive at a text which represents as accurately as possible the original text of the scriptures. This process is referred to as textual criticism.
The KJV only people really irriate me, because if they are right - then Christianity is a horribly anglo-centric, bigoted religion. If you can't read the KJV, then you don't have access to the "inspired" word of God. They can spout out that viewpoint in the United States and be pretty safe, but people in other countries, speaking other languages, are left out. One of my best friends on line is a French Canadian girl. I am sure she would be quite insulted to learn that God only reveals himself through his inspired word to English speaking people. The KJV only crowd completely ignores the tremendous work that the Wycliffe Bible Translators are doing in spreading the gospel throughout the world.
At this point, the more intelligent reader should be coming up against a paradox:
Simple! Since God obviously knew that manuscripts would not survive, the words he inspired in the original authors were arranged such that minor copying mistakes and translation differences would NOT CHANGE THE BASIC MEANING. This is why the Living Bible is winning as many people to Christ as the King James. Or Martin Luther's German translation. Or any other translation. God's word never returns void, no matter what language it is written in. That is more than adequate proof to me of its devine inspiration.
If one were looking for an "inerrant translation", the King James Bible is a very poor place to look. It was translated from a Greek version of the Bible called the "Textus Receptus" - a Latin phrase for "Received Text". The term 'received' understandably has a certain devine implication, but more than likely it was 16th century marketing hype for an poor translation.
Another question for the KJV only crowd - would you read a Bible translated by a non-Christian intellectual? If you think the accusation that King James was a homosexual is damning to your cause, READ THIS about the Greek "Textus Receptus":
The Greek text which stands behind the King James Bible is demonstrably inferior in certain places. The man who edited the text was a religious 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.
YOUR BIBLE, KJV advocates, is a translation of a Bible written by a religious humanist (as opposed to modern secular humanist). Erasmus may have had a belief in God (you judge from his biography), but it appears he only had commercial interest in the Holy Word of God!!! Yet many people take any attack on the "Textus Receptus" as sacreligious. A good example of the hurry Erasmus was in is that he only had half a dozen Greek manuscripts available, most of them relatively recent to his time. There were missing pages and portions, which he filled by translating the Latin Vulgate back into Greek! Instead of trying to find other manuscripts, which obviously existed in his time, since we still have them today. A lot of KJV and "Textus Receptus" purists insist that when there is a conflict between the manuscripts Erasmus used and much older manuscripts, we should believe the MORE RECENT Greek manuscipts are correct and reject the earlier ones. This is utter madness! Throw way the writings of men who were actual students of Paul and the disciples in favor of versions 1000 years later? NO THANKS!
I used the following sources in preparing this essay: