Here is the article which I will critique. I have inserted my comments in brackets.
"Dr." Gipp is at it again. by Eric DiVietro
Sam Gipp’s most recent “What’s the Big Deal about the KJV?” video tackles two questions:
- Did the King James translators add words to the Bible?
- Does the KJV correct the original Hebrew and Greek?
[1:26] Gipp’s first slight-of-hand is to state that no Bible believer would say that the English “corrects” the original Hebrew and Greek, but then says that no one has the original Greek and Hebrew. What he says without saying it is that the KJV is intact but the original languages are not. It is a distinction without a difference. He still believes the original languages have been superseded by the English.
[Well, DO YOU have the "original Greek and Hebrew" manuscripts? NO you do not. Gipp told the plain truth and Eric didn't like it, that ain't his style. Of course the King James Bible is "intact", where could it go? The KJB has billions of copies all over the world, has been downloaded onto millions of computers and is on countless websites. How could it not be "intact"? Now the question is, how could the "original" Hebrew and Greek be intact? God quit using the Hebrew and promised to send His word to the Gentiles. The Hebrews had the benefit and spiritual blessing of God's word (Ps. 147:19-20, Rom. 3:1-2) BUT NOW the Gentiles get it (Rom. 11:13-25, 15:27, 16:25-26). What has little Eric been studying? Surely not the word of God! A Greek lexicon perhaps, scouring for "nuggets in the original Greek", but God forbid he get his nose in the BOOK.
Why would the "original Hebrew" be "intact"? The "original Hebrew" is a LANGUAGE not a specific text or Bible. What does that even mean? A language being "intact"?
God's promise of preservation is on "words", not languages. God works with translations all through the Bible
Here is a whole list of inspired translations found within the Bible:
A.) Ge 42:18-20; cf Ge 42:23: Joseph spoke in Egyptian; his words were recorded in Scripture in Hebrew
B.) Ezra 4: A Syrian letter. The “copy” follows Ezra 4:11 in Hebrew.
C.) Ps 110:1; cf Lu 20:42-43: A Greek translation of a Hebrew Psalm.
D.) Mark 5:41: Aramaic translated into Greek.
E.) Acts 22: Paul spoke to them in Hebrew (Ac 22:2); Luke recorded it in Greek.
F.) Acts 26:14: Paul recites to Agrippa what Jesus said to him in Hebrew, and it is recorded in Greek.
G.) Matthew 27:46; Mark 15:34 : From Hebrew OT text (Ps 22:1) To Aramaic (in two spellings of the same word; Eli = Eloi) Transliterated from Aramaic into Greek. Translated right inside the verses from Aramaic into Greek.
(list given by Mr. Brandon Staggs of AV1611.com)
By the way, all this flim-flam about "the original Greek" is a first class hoax! At the same time God was inspiring "original Greek manuscripts" to be written by the apostles, He was also inspiring words spoken in OTHER languages (see Acts 2, 1 Cor. 14, and Eph. 4). The word of God was being spoken and copied in other languages at the same time as the "originals" were being written.
But little Eric missed all of those things because he can't study the Bible. Eric is simply trying to earn recognition among the Scholarship Only Cult.]
[1:51] Gipp’s assertion that the italicized words of the KJV represent only words added to smooth out the translation is patently false. While this was certainly the most common reason, they also used italics for phrases they added which did not appear in the text, such as the brother of in 2 Samuel 21:19. This addition was made solely to synchronize this passage with 1 Chronicles 20:5. There is absolutely no textual evidence for changing the reading.
[Really? That is what they said about 1 John 2:23 back in 1611, that there was no Greek manuscript that supported the last 10 words of the verse. However, the AV translators knew about the reading from the VULGATE (Latin) and supplied the words from that, but put them in italics. Then lo and behold those 10 words showed up in the Alexandrian manuscripts when "discovered". So let that be a lesson to Eric: you don't know what has textual evidence and what doesn't. All you know is AVAILABLE textual evidence. But Eric can't talk about that, if he did, people would quit listening to him and the Alexandrian Cult would stop patting him on the head. Gipp knows and teaches that the italic words are sometimes supplied to "smooth out" the translation and make it more readable going from Greek to English, but other times the words are implied but not contained in the Greek language. Eric is simply misrepresenting Gipp to make himself look smart.]
[2:09] When he recasts honest questions as “this friend of yours would be upset” about using the KJV, he is pulling another fast one. I do not know of any honest, English-speaking believer who would be upset about the italicized phrases in the KJV. What upsets people is the assertion that KJVO people make concerning the inspiration of those italicized words as being on par with the underlying text.
[Eric just openly stated that he has a problem with someone believing and living by EVERY word in the Bible. Eric does not follow Matthew 4:4 or Luke 4:4. His position is that you cannot have a final authority ("all authority' Titus 2:15) and that you must have knowledge of Greek lexicons and critical apparatuses in order to understand the Bible. You cannot be "unlearned and ignorant" (Acts 4:13) and learn the scriptures. That is the Scholarship Only position. They abhor any concept of 'all authority" (Titus 2:15) and cannot stand to be judged by the BOOK (Heb. 4:12, Rev. 20:12, John 12:48). Eric is his own god--which makes for one fool of a god!
Now about the "inspiration" of the italicized words in the KJB. Do the italic words in the KJB belong? Let's consult the LORD and the apostles about this issue. (I consult the Lord for a very specific reason--Rom 3:4)
|I have set the LORD always before me: because he is at my right hand, I shall not be moved. (Psa. 16:8)||For David speaketh concerning him, I foresaw the Lord always before my face, for he is on my right hand, that I should not be moved: (Acts 2:25)|
|Thou shalt not muzzle the ox when he treadeth out the corn. (Deu. 25:4)||For it is written in the law of Moses, Thou shalt not muzzle the mouth of the ox that treadeth out the corn. Doth God take care for oxen? (I Cor. 9:9. Also see I Tim. 5:18)|
|And he humbled thee, and suffered thee to hunger, and fed thee with manna, which thou knewest not, neither did thy fathers know; that he might make thee know that man doth not live by bread only, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of the LORD doth man live. (Deu. 8:3)||But he answered and said, It is written, Man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceedeth out of the mouth of God. (Mat. 4:4)|
|I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High. (Psa. 82:6)||Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said, Ye are gods? (John 10:34)|
|Therefore thus saith the Lord GOD, Behold, I lay in Zion for a foundation a stone, a tried stone, a precious corner stone, a sure foundation: he that believeth shall not make haste. (Isa. 28:16)||Wherefore also it is contained in the scripture, Behold, I lay in Sion a chief corner stone, elect, precious: and he that believeth on him shall not be confounded. (I Pet. 2:6)|
Both the Lord Jesus Christ and the apostle Paul QUOTE the italic words as scripture! And we were told to follow them (Matt. 4:19, 1 Cor. 11:1). So I will believe and live by "EVERY WORD" in my Bible. Ain't it a beautiful 'coincendence' that Deuteronomy 8:3 was one of the instances where God chose to prove the inspiration of the italic words? But Eric can't see it. He is blinder than a one eyed bat backing in backwards.]
[2:50] Dr. Gipp shows his young friend the italicized phrase who had been the wife of in Matthew 1:6 as evidence of the necessity of KJV translators adding phrases for ease of reading, and then says, “Surprise! This is not a King James Bible! It is New King James.” He claims this proves that the guy’s friend is ignorant because if they have a problem with additions to the text, they would have a problem with every translation. He creates a straw man – plain and simple.
[How is that a straw man? Those who disapprove of the KJB italics must also disapprove of the NKJV and ESV italics as shown in Dr. Gipp's video.]
Dr. Gipp is also ignorant of the development of the English text here. The particular line he is citing is not from the KJV. It dates back to the Vulgate. Only the word wife was added (by Tyndale, not by the KJV translators). This is a case where the translation is implied by the original. He ignores passages like Psalm 7:11 where the translators supplied the words the wicked to demonstrate a particular view of God. He also ignores passages where the Old Testament translation is adapted to the New Testament quotes or paraphrases, such as when Peter quotes Psalm 16:8 in Acts 2:25. While these additions do make the finished translation more cohesive, they give a false impression that the NT writers knew these passages verbatim, which they did not.
[What? The NT writers under inspiration of God did not know the Old Testament passages verbatim? If God INSPIRES you to quote something, you'll quote it right! Eric is an utter goof.]
[3:42] Another case of Dr. Gipp being either disingenuous or ignorant. He claims that the KJV supplies something lacking in the text by clarifying that “flies” in Exodus 8 is in italics. He completely misses that “swarms of flies” was idiomatic and a perfectly acceptable translation of the Hebrew עָרֹב, as evidenced by its use in Cranmer and Geneva. That the KJV translators put “flies” in italics is actually unfortunate. There was no reason to do that.
[KJB believers accept every word in the King James Bible, including the italics. So "flies" being in italics is not "unfortunate" in the slightest. Eric is just blowing smoke.]
[4:36] Gipp’s explanation of the addition of italics in 2 Samuel 21:19 is the same weak argument used by everyone who just has to have the KJV be perfect. He refers to modern translations as “pulling those italics out” when in fact, this is not what happens at all. Modern translations do not utilize the system of using italics because a translation is a translation. The italics should be removed in 2 Samuel 21:19. They do not belong to the text, and saying anything else is acknowledging exactly what Gipp says he does not believe – that the KJV corrects the shortcomings of the original languages.
[The question is WHO KILLED Goliath? Was it David? Was it Elhanan? How many Goliaths are there? Chapter and verse? The KJB has it right every time.
1 Samuel 17:51 Therefore David ran, and stood upon the Philistine, and took his sword, and drew it out of the sheath thereof, and slew him, and cut off his head therewith. And when the Philistines saw their champion was dead, they fled. [Goliath]
2 Samuel 21:19 And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaare-oregim, a Bethlehemite, slew the brother of Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. [Correct--cross reference 1 Chronicles 20:5]
1 Chronicles 20:5 And there was war again with the Philistines; and Elhanan the son of Jair slew Lahmi the brother of Goliath the Gittite, whose spear staff was like a weaver's beam. ]
[5:51] Arguing that the KJV does not have contradictions in it and therefore prevents confusion is absurdity. There is no contradiction to say two people killed someone named Goliath. The Philistines often used the same title for multiple people who filled the same office. Two people killing someone named Goliath does not make a contradiction, anymore than saying I like Sam and I don’t like Sam is a contradiction if I am talking about two different people named Sam. Gipp’s argument boils down to “Choose the Bible that is easier” instead of “honor the text.” And then he throws a coloring book into the situation.
[Of course. But if the italics were removed, the Bible wouldn't say that Elhanan killed "someone named Goliath", it would say "Goliath the Gittite". Erid can't read English.]
Once again, Gipp would rather be confident in the KJV than rely upon the text or do any kind of hard work. The KJV is just easier for him – there’s no way around it. He is dismissive of any kind of historical or textual work that might be needed to deal with the realities of the manuscript evidence and the process of translation. He asserts that if it is in the KJV, it is absolutely true; and then solves all his problems by putting that presupposition ahead of any other evidence.
[What is "THE text"? Go ahead Eric, tell us what "THE text" is. You say we can be "confident" in "THE text"? I would like one of those since you don't believe we can be confident in the KJB. So what is it? Can you send me a copy of "THE text"? Which text? There are dozens of texts. Eric, are you all there?
Of course the KJB is easy for us. That is what the Bible says isn't it?
Psalms 19:7 The law of the LORD is perfect, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is sure, making wise the simple.
Psalms 119:130 The entrance of thy words giveth light; it giveth understanding unto the simple.
By the way Eric, Dr. Gipp is by no means lazy. He has written quite a few books and does not own a home--he travels the country as an evangelist in a motor home. He is CONSTANTLY on the move. He does all of that with bad neck problems that he got many years ago from breaking his neck. And what are you Eric? Are you smarter than Gipp? What do you do?]
It would be nice if the situation were that simple; but it is not. To be honest, if I were that guy sitting across from Gipp, I would not just smile at his simple hand-waving dismissals and ignore my friend who is asking good questions. I would want to research this further. Fortunately (for him), Gipp is surrounded by people who just accept his explanations as absolute.
[Dr. Gipp knows a lot about MSS evidence and history, in fact he has been writing a book on it for over a decade. Eric just pretends like HE is the master mind and the final authority while everyone else is just a high school dropout.]