Below is an article sent to me by a "Church of Christ" evangelist on why no Bible is the preserved/inspired word of God. The COC said in one of his videos that "the word of God is perfect" but apparently he was just trying to sound like a preacher--he did not literally mine that the Bible sitting on his pulpit was "perfect".
Mr. Daly's article has been pasted below in red font.
King James VersionRon Daly
This article will consist of a relatively brief critique of one version of the English Bible – the King James Version (KJV). It is not our intent to cover the technical detail of the more comprehensive books already available on the subject. We will just point out its strengths and weaknesses, using the original text as the basis of what we hope will be judiciousness and objectivity.
King James came to the throne of England in 1603. He invited fifty-four scholars to participate in the revision process that would come to be known as the King James Version. The King James Version of the Bible was issued in 1611.
The King James Version was not the first English translation. It was preceded by Tyndale’s Version (1526, 1534), the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). The Old Testament committees used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus or Received Text. It is estimated that ninety percent of the King James New Testament is basically the vocabulary and style of William Tyndale.
Perhaps the greatest weaknesses of the King James Version are its archaic Elizabethan English, the textual base from which the New Testament was translated (that is, the use of the Textus Receptus), and many of the exegetical choices its translators made.
In the Old Testament text of the King James Version we read, “But there went up a mist from the earth” (Genesis 2:6). The word they render “mist” means stream or flow. It refers to underground streams that came to the surface or a substantial river. Genesis 12:19 says, “I might have taken her to me to wife.” The Hebrew simply says, “I took her.” In Deuteronomy 33:17 we read of the “unicorn.” The text says “wild ox.” In Isaiah 13:21 we read of “satyrs” instead of “wild goats.” In Psalm 44:19 we see “dragons” when the text says “jackals.” In Jeremiah 8:17 the King James Version has “cockatrices” but the text says “vipers.”
In the New Testament text of the King James Version we read, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child” (Matthew 1:23) but the Greek text from which it was translated says “the virgin.” The article “the” is used in the Textus Receptus but it does not appear before “virgin” in the King James Version in the text cited. We read that “the Lord added to the church such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). “Such as should be saved” is not in the Textus Receptus from which the King James Version is translated. It says “those who were being saved.” In Hebrews 6:6 we read, “If they shall fall away.” The Textus Receptus reads “having fallen away.” F. W. Farrar says the King James Version’s “rendering ‘if they shall fall away,’ is one of the most erroneous translations in the A. V.” (Cambridge Greek Testament For Schools And Colleges, The Epistle To The Hebrews, p. 83).
In 1 Timothy 3:1 the King James Version speaks of "...the office of a bishop." Two things are immediately apparent in the Greek text: (1) There is no corresponding word for "office." (2) The word episkopos doesn't mean "bishop," it means "overseer." Why does the King James Version have the word "bishop?" It reflects the religious views of those 17th century Church of England translators. This is one of the places where the NIV accurately reflects the sense of the original very nicely, "If anyone sets his heart on being an overseer."
There are many archaic words in the King James Version. We read of thee, thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. Many of the verbs have the old endings “eth” and “est.” We do not speak with such forms in modern English. In Exodus 17:13 we read, “Joshua discomfited Amalek.” More recent versions say Joshua defeated Amalek. In 1 Thessalonians 4:15 we read, “…we which are alive and remain unto the coming of the Lord shall not prevent them which are asleep.” The word “prevent” should be “precede.” The cases of archaic language could be multiplied many times over.
Why make the Lord’s words more difficult to understand than God intends? Correcting mistranslations and updating the English does no injustice to the scriptures. The original languages of scripture were the vernacular of the day.
The King James Version contains translation inconsistencies. “Devil” is used for Satan, the prince of demons, and the demons themselves. “Hell” is used for both Hades, the place of the dead, and Gehenna, the place of punishment. It translates the same Greek word two different ways in the same text: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46). The words “everlasting” and “eternal” translate the same Greek word.
Is this intended to imply that the King James Version is a poor translation? No. It has strengths. In general it attempts to reflect a modified-literal approach to translation. It is generally faithful to the text available to the translators at that time. It was produced during the time of Shakespearean literature; it has excellent poetic beauty and cadence if you like old English.
Since the publication of the King James Version the English language has changed, thousands of biblical manuscripts have been discovered, and much has been learned about Hebrew and Greek grammar, lexicography, and linguistics in general in the last 400 years. Biblical scholarship has moved on. The King James Version is deficient in some areas. It is not the last word in Bible translations.
A person would do well to use more than one translation of the scriptures. Study from and compare as many as you can. When you lock yourself in to using only one version, you also lock yourself in to the weaknesses of that one version. Learn to note the differences between the various versions and attempt to discover the reason for the variations.
HOSS'S CRITIQUE.
"We will just point out its strengths and weaknesses, using the original text as the basis of what we hope will be judiciousness and objectivity." There is no such animal as "the original text". You do not have any originals of anything. A good lie is always an excellent way to begin an article.
"The King James Version of the Bible was issued in 1611." Of course.
"The King James Version was not the first English translation." Pardon me, but "DUH".
"The King James Version was not the first English translation. It was preceded by Tyndale’s Version (1526, 1534), the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). The Old Testament committees used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus or Received Text. It is estimated that ninety percent of the King James New Testament is basically the vocabulary and style of William Tyndale." The Authorized Version [KJB] was not a direct translation. As stated on the first page, it was translated "out of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised". The translators already believed that the Bibles they had were good, they only professed to make good translations better. Therefore they started with versions such as Tyndale's, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, and many others, including foreign Bibles such as Luther's. The KJB translators believed that most of the readings in these versions were perfect and they only did minor revision and few re-translations. If you compare the KJB to the Geneva [for example] you will find that they are practically identical.
"Perhaps the greatest weaknesses of the King James Version are its archaic Elizabethan English, the textual base from which the New Testament was translated (that is, the use of the Textus Receptus), and many of the exegetical choices its translators made." In other words, you believe that everything about the KJB is "weak". You named everything. Meanwhile the KJB agrees with most every manuscript from the old Koine Greek to the Old Latin and Syriac. Not to mention the readings of the KJB are the ones God used in the protestant reformation and they are the ones that do not continually attack the Deity of Christ and blood atonement--"by their fruits ye shall know them" [Matt. 7:20]. The modern perversions [RV, ASV, NASV, Amplified, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, etc.] have produced very little fruit. The KJB [and agreeing translations such as Tyndale/Geneva/Luther] was and still is God's Book for starting revivals and protestant reformations. What has God used the RSV for? What truth do you get out of a NIV that I did not have in a KJB first? Answer: nothing. And just a note: the manuscripts that modern versions are translated from are Catholic Vatican manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both old pieces of junk discovered hidden in the Vatican library and a monestary. While they were rotting in the dust, the Textus Receptus was being used throughout the world. 90% of manuscripts agree with the TR, so there is nothing "weak" about the textual basis of the KJB.
"In the Old Testament text of the King James Version we read, “But there went up a mist from the earth” (Genesis 2:6). The word they render “mist” means stream or flow. It refers to underground streams that came to the surface or a substantial river." Says you. Meanwhile you must be smarter than Tyndale because he also translated it "mist". You must be smarter than Luther, because he translated it "ein Nebel ging auf" [mist]. You must be smarter than the Geneva translators because they also translated it "mist". Aren't you an arrogant little squirt? You do realize that Hebrew words can be translated different ways don't you? If would do your homework on Bible translators such as Luther and the AV translators, you may find that they were not as incompetent as you pretend.
"Genesis 12:19 says, “I might have taken her to me to wife.” The Hebrew simply says, “I took her.” In Deuteronomy 33:17 we read of the “unicorn.” The text says “wild ox.” In Isaiah 13:21 we read of “satyrs” instead of “wild goats.” In Psalm 44:19 we see “dragons” when the text says “jackals.” In Jeremiah 8:17 the King James Version has “cockatrices” but the text says “vipers.”"
GENESIS 12:19 "TAKEN HER TO ME TO WIFE": Sir, "THE Hebrew" was not the source that the KJB translators got their information from. The reading is found in the Geneva Bible (1560's), Wycliffe (1382), Tyndale (1534), Luther (1545), etc. as well as MODERN VERSIONS such as the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Apparently Mr. Daly thinks that he knows more about how to translate Hebrew than the translators of every English and German bible that has ever existed--I doubt that he does.
UNICORNS: The word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition "unicornio", the French Martin 1744 "licornes", Luther's German 1545 and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 "einhornshomer", the Russian Synodal version 1876, the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament "monokeros"(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation of 1870, the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York. (according to Mr. Will Kinney's research and article on "unicorns")
The problem Mr. Daly is having is that he does not know what a "unicorn" is. He must think it is a mythological horse-creature with one horn. The KJB translators say in their footnote that they are referring to a rhinoceros (1611 edition KJV). The very first definition of "unicorn" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros."
SATYR: The Hebrew word is "saiyr" and so "satyr" is not a wrong transliteration. Meanwhile Smith's Bible Dictionary gives "he-goats" as a definition for the word. The word is used 59 times in the Old Testament and it is translated "kid" 28 times, "goat" 24 times, "devil" 2 times, "satyr" 2 times, "hairy" 2 times, "rough" 1 time. The Hebrew word has different meanings such as "hairy", "rough", "goat", and "devils". Now what is a satyr? It is a ROUGH, HAIRY, half-goat, half-devil of mythology.
"Satyr" is a perfect translation of the Hebrew "saiyr".
COCKATRICE: There is no problem with the word "cockatrice". Webster's New World College Dictionary defines it as an unidentified deadly serpent.
DRAGON: Why is Mr. Daly objecting to the KJB's use of "dragon"? The other versions do it too: Bishop's, Geneva, RSV, ESV, Message, NASB, NLV, NRSV, etc. Mr. Daly continuously pretends to be smarter than every other translator in existence. There is no problem with the use of the word "dragon". Dictionaries define it in different ways such as "a very evil person", "a huge serpent", and "any of various lizards".
"In the New Testament text of the King James Version we read, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child” (Matthew 1:23) but the Greek text from which it was translated says “the virgin.” The article “the” is used in the Textus Receptus but it does not appear before “virgin” in the King James Version in the text cited." This is a Roman Catholic translation that Mr. Daly is promoting. Catholics worship Mary and put emphasis on her as "THE virgin". That is an error, the quotation in Matthew 1:23 is from Isaiah 7:14 which says "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The KJB has it right.
"We read that “the Lord added to the church such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). “Such as should be saved” is not in the Textus Receptus from which the King James Version is translated. It says “those who were being saved.”" Mr. Daly's suggestion on translation would be an error, nobody is "being saved". You are either saved or not saved--salvation is not a process. (Eph. 1:13)
"In Hebrews 6:6 we read, “If they shall fall away.” The Textus Receptus reads “having fallen away.” F. W. Farrar says the King James Version’s “rendering ‘if they shall fall away,’ is one of the most erroneous translations in the A. V.” (Cambridge Greek Testament For Schools And Colleges, The Epistle To The Hebrews, p. 83)." What is the difference? Anyway, this is a matter of how translation methods change over the years. The (1560's) Geneva translates it "if they shall fall away" and so does Tyndale (1526). I do not really care what Mr. Farrar says, I just believe the BOOK.
"In 1 Timothy 3:1 the King James Version speaks of "...the office of a bishop." Two things are immediately apparent in the Greek text: (1) There is no corresponding word for "office." (2) The word episkopos doesn't mean "bishop," it means "overseer." Why does the King James Version have the word "bishop?"" The problem here is that Mr. Daly does not know what the word "bishop" means. Webster's 1828 Dictionary, "1. An overseer; a spiritual superintendent, ruler or director; applied to Christ. Ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the shepherd and bishop of your souls. 1. Pet.2. 2. In the primitive church, a spiritual overseer; an elder or presbyter; one who had the pastoral care of a church."
"There are many archaic words in the King James Version. We read of thee, thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. Many of the verbs have the old endings “eth” and “est.” We do not speak with such forms in modern English." First of all, "thy", "thine", and "thou" are not difficult words in the slightest. Second of all, we do not speak Koine Greek--that is old and archaic. Yet you have been gassing about that through your whole article. Therefore you are inconsistent.
"The original languages of scripture were the vernacular of the day." Boy, you couldn't prove what the "original language" that the New Testament was written in WAS if your soul depended on it. Was it Greek? Latin? Aramaic? Or what about the book of Hebrews--it could have originally been written in Hebrew. YOU don't know!
"“Devil” is used for Satan, the prince of demons, and the demons themselves. “Hell” is used for both Hades, the place of the dead, and Gehenna, the place of punishment. It translates the same Greek word two different ways in the same text: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46). The words “everlasting” and “eternal” translate the same Greek word." The KJB makes it clear that Satan is the "prince of devils" and you can tell which is being referred to by the context (Matt. 9:34). As for "hell", that is perfectly accurate. Hell was the place of all dead folks (Luke 16:19-31) and the place of punishment. All translations translate a word different ways in different places. To say that a translator must always either use "everlasting" instead of "eternal" (or vice versa) is absurd. Both words mean the same thing.
"Is this intended to imply that the King James Version is a poor translation? No. It has strengths. In general it attempts to reflect a modified-literal approach to translation. It is generally faithful to the text available to the translators at that time. It was produced during the time of Shakespearean literature; it has excellent poetic beauty and cadence if you like old English." That means nothing. If the King James Bible is the inspired word of God than you should not critique it. If it is NOT the inspired word of God than it is a corruption that should be destroyed (1 Cor. 5:6-7). I believe that the KJB is the inspired/preserved words of God in English.
"Since the publication of the King James Version the English language has changed, thousands of biblical manuscripts have been discovered, and much has been learned about Hebrew and Greek grammar, lexicography, and linguistics in general in the last 400 years." The claim that thousands of biblical manuscripts have been discovered since 1611 is nothing important and is a deceiving statement. There have been no new readings discovered. The KJB translators had the corrupt readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the Catholic bibles that they could have used if they wanted to. How could you learn more about Hebrew and Greek grammar when the languages have only gotten MORE DEAD. They KJB translators were 400 years closer to when those languages were used and the KJB translators were much more intelligent than what we have today. (see the NEB from 1970--it says that people "broke wind" Judges 1:14)
"A person would do well to use more than one translation of the scriptures. Study from and compare as many as you can. When you lock yourself in to using only one version, you also lock yourself in to the weaknesses of that one version. Learn to note the differences between the various versions and attempt to discover the reason for the variations." That is polytheism. Mr. Daly is telling you that you do not have ONE book has your infallible authority. Meanwhile, no man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24)! The different versions differ and are from entirely different Greek texts from different parts of the world. The manuscripts behind modern versions are Catholic manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt while the manuscripts behind the KJB are pure manuscripts from Antioch. ANTIOCH is where the originals were written (Acts 11:26-27, 13:1).
Also see these posts
Three questions on authority.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/three-questions-on-authority.html
Archeology/history vs Bible preservation
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/archeologyhistory-vs-bible-preservation.html
Perversions
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/perversions.html
Perversions (Part 2)
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/perversions-part-2.html
Attributes of the living word of God.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/attributes-of-living-word-of-god.html
--Eli Caldwell
HOSS'S CRITIQUE.
"We will just point out its strengths and weaknesses, using the original text as the basis of what we hope will be judiciousness and objectivity." There is no such animal as "the original text". You do not have any originals of anything. A good lie is always an excellent way to begin an article.
"The King James Version of the Bible was issued in 1611." Of course.
"The King James Version was not the first English translation." Pardon me, but "DUH".
"The King James Version was not the first English translation. It was preceded by Tyndale’s Version (1526, 1534), the Coverdale Bible (1535), Matthews Bible (1537), the Great Bible (1539), the Geneva Bible (1560), and the Bishop’s Bible (1568). The Old Testament committees used the Masoretic Hebrew text and the New Testament was translated from the Textus Receptus or Received Text. It is estimated that ninety percent of the King James New Testament is basically the vocabulary and style of William Tyndale." The Authorized Version [KJB] was not a direct translation. As stated on the first page, it was translated "out of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised". The translators already believed that the Bibles they had were good, they only professed to make good translations better. Therefore they started with versions such as Tyndale's, Bishop's, Coverdale, Geneva, and many others, including foreign Bibles such as Luther's. The KJB translators believed that most of the readings in these versions were perfect and they only did minor revision and few re-translations. If you compare the KJB to the Geneva [for example] you will find that they are practically identical.
"Perhaps the greatest weaknesses of the King James Version are its archaic Elizabethan English, the textual base from which the New Testament was translated (that is, the use of the Textus Receptus), and many of the exegetical choices its translators made." In other words, you believe that everything about the KJB is "weak". You named everything. Meanwhile the KJB agrees with most every manuscript from the old Koine Greek to the Old Latin and Syriac. Not to mention the readings of the KJB are the ones God used in the protestant reformation and they are the ones that do not continually attack the Deity of Christ and blood atonement--"by their fruits ye shall know them" [Matt. 7:20]. The modern perversions [RV, ASV, NASV, Amplified, RSV, NRSV, NIV, ESV, etc.] have produced very little fruit. The KJB [and agreeing translations such as Tyndale/Geneva/Luther] was and still is God's Book for starting revivals and protestant reformations. What has God used the RSV for? What truth do you get out of a NIV that I did not have in a KJB first? Answer: nothing. And just a note: the manuscripts that modern versions are translated from are Catholic Vatican manuscripts. Vaticanus and Sinaiticus were both old pieces of junk discovered hidden in the Vatican library and a monestary. While they were rotting in the dust, the Textus Receptus was being used throughout the world. 90% of manuscripts agree with the TR, so there is nothing "weak" about the textual basis of the KJB.
"In the Old Testament text of the King James Version we read, “But there went up a mist from the earth” (Genesis 2:6). The word they render “mist” means stream or flow. It refers to underground streams that came to the surface or a substantial river." Says you. Meanwhile you must be smarter than Tyndale because he also translated it "mist". You must be smarter than Luther, because he translated it "ein Nebel ging auf" [mist]. You must be smarter than the Geneva translators because they also translated it "mist". Aren't you an arrogant little squirt? You do realize that Hebrew words can be translated different ways don't you? If would do your homework on Bible translators such as Luther and the AV translators, you may find that they were not as incompetent as you pretend.
"Genesis 12:19 says, “I might have taken her to me to wife.” The Hebrew simply says, “I took her.” In Deuteronomy 33:17 we read of the “unicorn.” The text says “wild ox.” In Isaiah 13:21 we read of “satyrs” instead of “wild goats.” In Psalm 44:19 we see “dragons” when the text says “jackals.” In Jeremiah 8:17 the King James Version has “cockatrices” but the text says “vipers.”"
GENESIS 12:19 "TAKEN HER TO ME TO WIFE": Sir, "THE Hebrew" was not the source that the KJB translators got their information from. The reading is found in the Geneva Bible (1560's), Wycliffe (1382), Tyndale (1534), Luther (1545), etc. as well as MODERN VERSIONS such as the NIV, ESV, and NASB. Apparently Mr. Daly thinks that he knows more about how to translate Hebrew than the translators of every English and German bible that has ever existed--I doubt that he does.
UNICORNS: The word unicorn is found in Wycliffs translation 1395, Tyndale 1525 (he translated part of the Old Testament before he was killed), Coverdale’s Bible 1535, Taverner’s Bible, the Great Bible, the Bishops Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the so called Greek Septuagint version, the Italian Diodati 1649, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1569, as well as the Spanish Reina Valera of 1602, all of which preceeded the King James Bible. Today, other more modern versions that contain the word unicorn are the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909, the Spanish Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition "unicornio", the French Martin 1744 "licornes", Luther's German 1545 and the updated Luther German Bible of 1912 "einhornshomer", the Russian Synodal version 1876, the Modern Greek translation of the Old Testament "monokeros"(not to be confused with the so called LXX), the Catholic Douay version of 1950, Darby’s translation of 1870, the 21st Century King James Version, the Third Millenium Bible, Daniel Webster’s translation of the Bible 1833, Lamsa’s 1933 Bible translation of the Syraic Peshitta, and in the 1936 edition of the Massoretic Scriptures put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York. (according to Mr. Will Kinney's research and article on "unicorns")
The problem Mr. Daly is having is that he does not know what a "unicorn" is. He must think it is a mythological horse-creature with one horn. The KJB translators say in their footnote that they are referring to a rhinoceros (1611 edition KJV). The very first definition of "unicorn" in Webster's 1828 dictionary is "an animal with one horn; the monoceros. this name is often applied to the rhinoceros."
SATYR: The Hebrew word is "saiyr" and so "satyr" is not a wrong transliteration. Meanwhile Smith's Bible Dictionary gives "he-goats" as a definition for the word. The word is used 59 times in the Old Testament and it is translated "kid" 28 times, "goat" 24 times, "devil" 2 times, "satyr" 2 times, "hairy" 2 times, "rough" 1 time. The Hebrew word has different meanings such as "hairy", "rough", "goat", and "devils". Now what is a satyr? It is a ROUGH, HAIRY, half-goat, half-devil of mythology.
"Satyr" is a perfect translation of the Hebrew "saiyr".
COCKATRICE: There is no problem with the word "cockatrice". Webster's New World College Dictionary defines it as an unidentified deadly serpent.
DRAGON: Why is Mr. Daly objecting to the KJB's use of "dragon"? The other versions do it too: Bishop's, Geneva, RSV, ESV, Message, NASB, NLV, NRSV, etc. Mr. Daly continuously pretends to be smarter than every other translator in existence. There is no problem with the use of the word "dragon". Dictionaries define it in different ways such as "a very evil person", "a huge serpent", and "any of various lizards".
"In the New Testament text of the King James Version we read, “Behold, a virgin shall be with child” (Matthew 1:23) but the Greek text from which it was translated says “the virgin.” The article “the” is used in the Textus Receptus but it does not appear before “virgin” in the King James Version in the text cited." This is a Roman Catholic translation that Mr. Daly is promoting. Catholics worship Mary and put emphasis on her as "THE virgin". That is an error, the quotation in Matthew 1:23 is from Isaiah 7:14 which says "Therefore the Lord himself shall give you a sign; Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel." The KJB has it right.
"We read that “the Lord added to the church such as should be saved” (Acts 2:47). “Such as should be saved” is not in the Textus Receptus from which the King James Version is translated. It says “those who were being saved.”" Mr. Daly's suggestion on translation would be an error, nobody is "being saved". You are either saved or not saved--salvation is not a process. (Eph. 1:13)
"In Hebrews 6:6 we read, “If they shall fall away.” The Textus Receptus reads “having fallen away.” F. W. Farrar says the King James Version’s “rendering ‘if they shall fall away,’ is one of the most erroneous translations in the A. V.” (Cambridge Greek Testament For Schools And Colleges, The Epistle To The Hebrews, p. 83)." What is the difference? Anyway, this is a matter of how translation methods change over the years. The (1560's) Geneva translates it "if they shall fall away" and so does Tyndale (1526). I do not really care what Mr. Farrar says, I just believe the BOOK.
"In 1 Timothy 3:1 the King James Version speaks of "...the office of a bishop." Two things are immediately apparent in the Greek text: (1) There is no corresponding word for "office." (2) The word episkopos doesn't mean "bishop," it means "overseer." Why does the King James Version have the word "bishop?"" The problem here is that Mr. Daly does not know what the word "bishop" means. Webster's 1828 Dictionary, "1. An overseer; a spiritual superintendent, ruler or director; applied to Christ. Ye were as sheep going astray, but are now returned to the shepherd and bishop of your souls. 1. Pet.2. 2. In the primitive church, a spiritual overseer; an elder or presbyter; one who had the pastoral care of a church."
"There are many archaic words in the King James Version. We read of thee, thy, thine, thou, ye, etc. Many of the verbs have the old endings “eth” and “est.” We do not speak with such forms in modern English." First of all, "thy", "thine", and "thou" are not difficult words in the slightest. Second of all, we do not speak Koine Greek--that is old and archaic. Yet you have been gassing about that through your whole article. Therefore you are inconsistent.
"The original languages of scripture were the vernacular of the day." Boy, you couldn't prove what the "original language" that the New Testament was written in WAS if your soul depended on it. Was it Greek? Latin? Aramaic? Or what about the book of Hebrews--it could have originally been written in Hebrew. YOU don't know!
"“Devil” is used for Satan, the prince of demons, and the demons themselves. “Hell” is used for both Hades, the place of the dead, and Gehenna, the place of punishment. It translates the same Greek word two different ways in the same text: “And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal” (Matthew 25:46). The words “everlasting” and “eternal” translate the same Greek word." The KJB makes it clear that Satan is the "prince of devils" and you can tell which is being referred to by the context (Matt. 9:34). As for "hell", that is perfectly accurate. Hell was the place of all dead folks (Luke 16:19-31) and the place of punishment. All translations translate a word different ways in different places. To say that a translator must always either use "everlasting" instead of "eternal" (or vice versa) is absurd. Both words mean the same thing.
"Is this intended to imply that the King James Version is a poor translation? No. It has strengths. In general it attempts to reflect a modified-literal approach to translation. It is generally faithful to the text available to the translators at that time. It was produced during the time of Shakespearean literature; it has excellent poetic beauty and cadence if you like old English." That means nothing. If the King James Bible is the inspired word of God than you should not critique it. If it is NOT the inspired word of God than it is a corruption that should be destroyed (1 Cor. 5:6-7). I believe that the KJB is the inspired/preserved words of God in English.
"Since the publication of the King James Version the English language has changed, thousands of biblical manuscripts have been discovered, and much has been learned about Hebrew and Greek grammar, lexicography, and linguistics in general in the last 400 years." The claim that thousands of biblical manuscripts have been discovered since 1611 is nothing important and is a deceiving statement. There have been no new readings discovered. The KJB translators had the corrupt readings of Vaticanus and Siniaticus in the Catholic bibles that they could have used if they wanted to. How could you learn more about Hebrew and Greek grammar when the languages have only gotten MORE DEAD. They KJB translators were 400 years closer to when those languages were used and the KJB translators were much more intelligent than what we have today. (see the NEB from 1970--it says that people "broke wind" Judges 1:14)
"A person would do well to use more than one translation of the scriptures. Study from and compare as many as you can. When you lock yourself in to using only one version, you also lock yourself in to the weaknesses of that one version. Learn to note the differences between the various versions and attempt to discover the reason for the variations." That is polytheism. Mr. Daly is telling you that you do not have ONE book has your infallible authority. Meanwhile, no man can serve two masters (Matt. 6:24)! The different versions differ and are from entirely different Greek texts from different parts of the world. The manuscripts behind modern versions are Catholic manuscripts from Alexandria, Egypt while the manuscripts behind the KJB are pure manuscripts from Antioch. ANTIOCH is where the originals were written (Acts 11:26-27, 13:1).
Here are a few problems with modern versions (NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NRSV, etc.).
1.) Luke 2:33 says that Joseph was Christ's "father" while the KJB says "Joseph".
2.) 1 Tim. 3:16 says that "God was manifest in the flesh" in the KJB. Modern versions say "he appeared in a body".
3.) Modern versions omit many verses of scripture. Such as Matthew 17:21, 18:11, 23:14, Mark 7:14, 9:44, 9:46, 11:26, 15:28, Luke 17:36, John 5:4, Acts 8:37, 15:34, 24:7, 28:29, Rom. 16:24, 1 John 5:7.
4.) Modern versions have footnotes saying that many other verses do not belong (such as half of John 8 and Mark 16). Modern versions will omit single verses, but they will not omit half of a chapter because people would not buy a bible that was missing that much.
5.) In Micah 5:2 KJB says that Christ's "goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting". However, modern versions change this to say "origins from old, from ancient times".
6.) In John 3:13 Jesus claimed omnipresence (being everywhere at once) when He said "even the Son of man which is in heaven". Modern versions omit that phase.
7.) In Ephesians 3:9 the KJB says that God created all things by Jesus Christ, that phrase is omitted in modern versions.
Also see these posts
Three questions on authority.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/three-questions-on-authority.html
Archeology/history vs Bible preservation
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/archeologyhistory-vs-bible-preservation.html
Perversions
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/perversions.html
Perversions (Part 2)
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/10/perversions-part-2.html
Attributes of the living word of God.
http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2014/09/attributes-of-living-word-of-god.html
--Eli Caldwell
This is the same guy that is busy translating his own version of the New Testament. To conform to what his religion teaches.
ReplyDeleteHe is just another scribe to be wary of.
Yep, his role model (Alexander Campbell) did the same thing.
Deletehttp://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/08/alexander-campbell-bible-perverter.html