My comments have been inserted in brackets. --Eli "Hoss" Caldwell
Is The King James Version Perfect?
Michael J. Penfold
The King James Version of the Bible still excels as a translation. However, in recent years, thousands of Christians, mainly independent Baptists from the USA, have come to hold an extreme and illogical view: that the KJV represents not just a very good, or even the best translation in the English language, but that it is absolutely perfect and without blemish. They believe that the Lord infallibly guided its translators to always choose exactly the right wording, punctuation and italicisation in every single case.
[Classic. Penfold starts off saying good things about the KJB but then immediately goes into an attack on it. Basically, he considers the KJB to be a good read, but he believes that the words "Holy Bible" should be scratched off the cover because he does not believe that it is pure, holy, infallible, or inspired. Penfold does not believe that the KJB is the word of God that liveth and abideth forever nor does he believe it is inspired, he believes that it is a DEAD book.
What Penfold did (as all who attack God's Book do) is he left out the discussion of God's preservation of the Bible: Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27.
The word of God has been perfectly preserved and GOD is the preserver, not man. Man is only the tool God uses.
These things were ignored by Penfold.]
Mr. Ron Smith, author of the KJV-only Waymarks magazine, states; ‘‘All the words in my Bible [KJV], including words in italics, are the word of God ’’ (No. 27, Winter 2001-02); and ‘‘MY Bible [KJV] IS the Holy Bible and ONE imperfection...would cause it...to become unholy ’’ (No. 29, Summer 2002). Note the word ‘imperfection’. KJV-only advocates believe their ‘infallible’ version is not only error free, but even ‘imperfection’ free. Thus, if the Lord does not return for another 500 years and the English language changes to the extent that 20% of the KJV’s words become obsolete, the KJV will remain the only Bible that Christians should ever hold to, because it, and it alone, is the perfectly preserved word of God!
[Haha! Penfold is such a goof. He mocks the KJV for being "archaic", but answer me this Bible corrector: how much more "archaic" are ancient Hebrew and Koine Greek? HUH? And you believe that THOSE are the only reliable sources of the word of God? Penfold talks out both sides of his mouth.]
The world’s leading KJV-onlyite, the fundamentally unsound independent Baptist pastor Dr. Peter Ruckman from Florida, USA, actually believes the KJV will be used in heaven and will be one of the books opened at the last judgment! According to the ‘KJV only’ theory, any old fashioned words in the KJV must be explained by the use of an English dictionary that gives enough etymology to be able to find out what those providentially chosen words meant back in 1611! The simpler solution - updating words whose meanings have changed - would be wrong, because it would imply the KJV was imperfect and therefore not the word of God. How did anyone fall for this theory?
[What is unsound about Dr. Ruckman? HUH? Penfold didn't say.
The KJV will be opened at the Great White Throne Judgement.
"Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away." (Matt. 24:35)
"He that rejecteth me, and receiveth not my words, hath one that judgeth him: the word that I have spoken, the same shall judge him in the last day." (Heb. 12:48)
"And I saw the dead, small and great, stand before God; and the books were opened: and another book was opened, which is the book of life: and the dead were judged out of those things which were written in the books, according to their works." (Rev. 20:12)
What would really bother Penfold was if he knew that the KJV judges him right NOW.
"For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart." (Heb. 4:12)]
Many have been forced to take up a ‘KJV only’ position by hearing the following persuasive, but fatally flawed line of questioning: ‘‘Do you believe the Bible is the infallible word of God? ’’ If you answer ‘‘Yes’’, the follow up question is: ‘‘Which Bible? ’’ Unless you can then specify a Bible that you believe to be 100% perfect, infallible and inerrant, your questioner has just caught you ‘lying’ and proved that you are a Christian without a final and absolute authority. Pressing further he may demand, ‘‘How can you stand in the pulpit when you have nothing to preach?’’ So, pinned up against the wall with these questions, many have felt compelled to confer infallibility on one particular Bible translation — the King James Version. Some folk hold to this theory with all the tenacity of a pit bull terrier, feeling that if they surrender the infallibility of the KJV, they have denied the faith, called God a liar and become an apostate. This issue, which often becomes their hobby horse, is to them the very touchstone of orthodoxy.
[Well of course. That is all true, except for where you used the word "theory".
If I were to quit believing the Bible, I would indeed be an "apostate".
Notice how Penfold does not believe that the word of God should be our "hobby horse". I wonder what he thinks our "hobby horse" should be?]
[Well of course. That is all true, except for where you used the word "theory".
If I were to quit believing the Bible, I would indeed be an "apostate".
Notice how Penfold does not believe that the word of God should be our "hobby horse". I wonder what he thinks our "hobby horse" should be?]
Since no two Greek or Hebrew manuscripts are exactly the same and none contain, in a single publicly accessible place, all the words of the original New Testament and only those words, KJV only advocates do not claim to have the perfect word of God in the original languages. Yet they claim they have it in English! How so? Ultimately it is by faith. By faith they ‘believe’ that God supernaturally guided the KJV translators to pick the right Greek and Hebrew words and translate them perfectly every single time, despite often having several options from which to choose.
[It is true that no two Hebrew or Greek manuscripts have all the words, but how about TEXTS? You left out that one, Penny! Now answer me this Bible corrector: since "no two Greek or Hebrew manuscripts are exactly the same and none contain, in a single publicly accessible place, all the words of the original New Testament and only those words", HOW COULD THEY EVEN POSSIBLY BE "PERFECT"? Perfect means complete! I believe the word of God is in English because the Bible promised preservation to "all nations" that would "continue in his [God's] goodness".
Now the question is, how could the word of God in the "original languages" of 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). Penfold missed all of the truth of Romans 3:1-2 with 11:13-25 with 15:27 with 16:25-26.
And what does Penfold mean by, "Ultimately it is by faith. By faith they ‘believe’ that God supernaturally guided the KJV translators to pick the right Greek and Hebrew words and translate them perfectly every single time, despite often having several options from which to choose" There are many problems with that statement:
A.) We were told to walk by faith, not by the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 2:4-13, 2 Cor. 5:6).
B.) We were told that God is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:6-7)
C.) The KJB is not a "translation" it is a TRANSLATION PLUS REVISION. "translated our of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised"!!! Therefore sometime the KJB does not even line up with the Hebrew and Greek and does not "correctly translate" anything. But I do not believe that the Hebrew and Greek carry any more authority than the French, German, Dutch, Spanish, and English that the KJB was a revision of.
D.) Anyone who believes that the original autographs were inspired believes that God chose through the human author every word correctly even though there were many options. This is no different than what King James Bible believers believe about preservation. The same God that made the words pure (inspiration) is the same God that keeps them pure (preservation) according to Psalms 12:6-7 and 1 Peter 1:23-25.]
[It is true that no two Hebrew or Greek manuscripts have all the words, but how about TEXTS? You left out that one, Penny! Now answer me this Bible corrector: since "no two Greek or Hebrew manuscripts are exactly the same and none contain, in a single publicly accessible place, all the words of the original New Testament and only those words", HOW COULD THEY EVEN POSSIBLY BE "PERFECT"? Perfect means complete! I believe the word of God is in English because the Bible promised preservation to "all nations" that would "continue in his [God's] goodness".
Now the question is, how could the word of God in the "original languages" of 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). Penfold missed all of the truth of Romans 3:1-2 with 11:13-25 with 15:27 with 16:25-26.
And what does Penfold mean by, "Ultimately it is by faith. By faith they ‘believe’ that God supernaturally guided the KJV translators to pick the right Greek and Hebrew words and translate them perfectly every single time, despite often having several options from which to choose" There are many problems with that statement:
A.) We were told to walk by faith, not by the wisdom of men (1 Cor. 2:4-13, 2 Cor. 5:6).
B.) We were told that God is the preserver, not man (Ps. 12:6-7)
C.) The KJB is not a "translation" it is a TRANSLATION PLUS REVISION. "translated our of the original tongues and with former translations diligently compared and revised"!!! Therefore sometime the KJB does not even line up with the Hebrew and Greek and does not "correctly translate" anything. But I do not believe that the Hebrew and Greek carry any more authority than the French, German, Dutch, Spanish, and English that the KJB was a revision of.
D.) Anyone who believes that the original autographs were inspired believes that God chose through the human author every word correctly even though there were many options. This is no different than what King James Bible believers believe about preservation. The same God that made the words pure (inspiration) is the same God that keeps them pure (preservation) according to Psalms 12:6-7 and 1 Peter 1:23-25.]
Is it logical?
[Yes, but more importantly than that, it is also scriptural!]
[Yes, but more importantly than that, it is also scriptural!]
Consider this to start with — if one must have all the words of the original and only the words of the original, in one book, to be able to call that book the word of God, what shall we say to the fact that not only do no two Greek or Hebrew manuscripts agree with each other 100% (including no two editions of the Textus Receptus), no two editions of the King James Version agree perfectly either? The first KJV appeared in 1611. However, the KJV used widely today is the 1769 Benjamin Blayney revision. The fact is, unless your KJV contains the Apocrypha and spells Jew as ‘Iewe’ and cattle as ‘cattell’, you do not have a 1611 KJV! As for the italics, in Matthew’s Gospel alone, the 1769 KJV has 315 more uses of italics than the 1611 edition. Did you know that the 1769 KJV differs from the 1611 edition in a total of 75,000 details, 421 of which are noticeable to the ear when read aloud? It is true that most of these involve adjustments to archaic spelling, the correction of printing errors and the more regular use of italics — and about 72% of the noticeable textual changes had been made by 1638, only 27 years after the KJV was first published. However, the following are examples of corrections that were not made until 1762, over 150 years after the KJV was first published. These do not involve corrections of spelling or printing errors:
[Well if Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27 all mean what they say, that the word of God "liveth and abideth forever", than YES we must "have all the words of the original and only the words of the original". That is what we must have in our Bibles if we are going to call them "the word of God" because the word of God is "pure" "very pure" and "true from the beginning" (Ps. 12:6, 119:140, 119:160). If our Bible has any mixture of error in it, then it is NOT and CANNOT be called "the word of God".
The font such as "italics" has no bearing on the KJB's preserved words. For example, if I sent you an email using ARIAL font, but you forward it to someone using COURIER, it is still my words no matter what font you put it in.
As for spelling updates in the English language, that does not effect the preserved text.
The KJB of 1611 did not contain the apocrypha as part of the Old and New Testaments--they excluded it from the Bible. The KJB of 1611 contained several sections and was a huge book. One section was called "The Old Testament" and had a cover page and headers that said "Old Testament". This ran from Genesis to Malachi which then said "the end of the prophets". Then they had a section that they titled "APOCRYPHA" which means "books whose authors are not known; whose authenticity, as inspired writings, is not admitted, and which are therefore not considered a part of the sacred canon of the scripture" (Webster's 1828 dictionary). After this, they then had a cover page and headers for the New Testament. King James himself said he rejected the apocryohal books because "I am not a papist". Meanwhile Penfold forgot to mention that the Greek manuscripts behind the modern versions such as the NASB, LB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NWT, etc. contain the apocryphal books inside both their Old Testament and New Testament.
[Well if Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27 all mean what they say, that the word of God "liveth and abideth forever", than YES we must "have all the words of the original and only the words of the original". That is what we must have in our Bibles if we are going to call them "the word of God" because the word of God is "pure" "very pure" and "true from the beginning" (Ps. 12:6, 119:140, 119:160). If our Bible has any mixture of error in it, then it is NOT and CANNOT be called "the word of God".
The font such as "italics" has no bearing on the KJB's preserved words. For example, if I sent you an email using ARIAL font, but you forward it to someone using COURIER, it is still my words no matter what font you put it in.
As for spelling updates in the English language, that does not effect the preserved text.
The KJB of 1611 did not contain the apocrypha as part of the Old and New Testaments--they excluded it from the Bible. The KJB of 1611 contained several sections and was a huge book. One section was called "The Old Testament" and had a cover page and headers that said "Old Testament". This ran from Genesis to Malachi which then said "the end of the prophets". Then they had a section that they titled "APOCRYPHA" which means "books whose authors are not known; whose authenticity, as inspired writings, is not admitted, and which are therefore not considered a part of the sacred canon of the scripture" (Webster's 1828 dictionary). After this, they then had a cover page and headers for the New Testament. King James himself said he rejected the apocryohal books because "I am not a papist". Meanwhile Penfold forgot to mention that the Greek manuscripts behind the modern versions such as the NASB, LB, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NLT, NWT, etc. contain the apocryphal books inside both their Old Testament and New Testament.
Matt 16:16
1611 KJV ‘‘Thou art Christ.’’
Current KJV ‘‘Thou art the Christ.’’
[This is a printers error in the 1611, though it did not effect the meaning of the text. The TR from which the KJB came from contains the word "the" (art the Christ = ει ο χριστος ) .]
[This is a printers error in the 1611, though it did not effect the meaning of the text. The TR from which the KJB came from contains the word "the" (art the Christ = ει ο χριστος ) .]
John 12:22
1611 KJV ‘‘Andrew and Philip told Jesus.’’
Current KJV ‘‘Andrew and Philip tell Jesus.’’
[This is a printers error in the 1611, not an error in text. In fact, this is a grammar change and not really a word change. "Tell" and "told" are variants of the same word. The TR from which the KJB came from says "tell Jesus", λεγουσιν τω ιησου.]
[This is a printers error in the 1611, not an error in text. In fact, this is a grammar change and not really a word change. "Tell" and "told" are variants of the same word. The TR from which the KJB came from says "tell Jesus", λεγουσιν τω ιησου.]
Romans 3v24
1611 KJV ‘‘the redemption that is in Jesus Christ’’
Current KJV ‘‘the redemption that is in Christ Jesus’’
[The word order does not matter here, both say the same thing. This printers error was fixed, because again the TR has the current KJB reading χριστω ιησου.]
[The word order does not matter here, both say the same thing. This printers error was fixed, because again the TR has the current KJB reading χριστω ιησου.]
(For a full list see Dr. F. Scrivener’s, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, 1884, Appendix A).
It is acknowledged that these revisions are slight and do not affect any fundamental doctrine. However, they are real revisions; in light of which we ask, was the 1611 KJV really the infallible, inerrant and perfect word of God? If so, the modern KJV is ‘corrupt’. However, if the modern KJV is the perfect word of God, the 1611 edition was ‘corrupt’. Which is it? This argument alone spells the end of the myth of a ‘perfectly preserved imperfection free KJV’. The next time someone tells you the KJV is the ‘mistake free, error free, completely perfect translation’, ask him which edition he is referring to. If he says 1769 ask him where the ‘perfect word of God’ was in 1768. Ask him if every preacher who held up the KJV in 1611 and said ‘‘This book is the word of God ’’ was a liar. Now you can see the humour of ‘1611 AV’ defenders, who are actually defending the ‘1769 AV’!
[Ha, LOL. Penfold is trying to compare printers errors in the early printing methods (not a KJB textual issue) with the textual differences between the Alexandrian translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) and the King James Bible. What a laugh! There is no comparison. I have a Bible that has a ink smeared line on it that it got from the printer, however, if I got some liquid paper and covered up the ink smear, would I be "omitting" the word of God??? NO! I would be correcting a printers error. These corrections are not textual, unlike the differences in the modern versions and the KJB.
Now I will answer Penfold's questions:
1.) "was the 1611 KJV really the infallible, inerrant and perfect word of God?" Yes, every verse that did not contain a printers error was indeed infallible. I have a book called Seventy-Five Problems written by Loyd Streeter. The book is around 220 pages, but about 10 of them are blank. The printer messed up and did not print content on those pages. Does this mean that Loyd's book has errors in it? No. All it means is that the printer did not print you an accurate copy on every page. This is not "corruption", this is an accident. It has nothing to do with the KJB itself.
2.) "Which is it?" Neither one was or is corrupt. The original KJB and the KJB of today are identical aside from updates made in the English language.
3.) "This argument alone spells the end of the myth of a ‘perfectly preserved imperfection free KJV’." I wonder why Penfold won't come out and plainly state that he does not have a final authority and that he does not believe that God has perfectly preserved His words? Penfold does not believe in a "perfectly preserved imperfection free" ANYTHING!
Meanwhile, editions of the NIV and NASB are also numerous and they are actual textual changes and not editing printers errors. But Penfold won't mention that, because he is a punk.]
[Ha, LOL. Penfold is trying to compare printers errors in the early printing methods (not a KJB textual issue) with the textual differences between the Alexandrian translations (NIV, ESV, NASB, etc.) and the King James Bible. What a laugh! There is no comparison. I have a Bible that has a ink smeared line on it that it got from the printer, however, if I got some liquid paper and covered up the ink smear, would I be "omitting" the word of God??? NO! I would be correcting a printers error. These corrections are not textual, unlike the differences in the modern versions and the KJB.
Now I will answer Penfold's questions:
1.) "was the 1611 KJV really the infallible, inerrant and perfect word of God?" Yes, every verse that did not contain a printers error was indeed infallible. I have a book called Seventy-Five Problems written by Loyd Streeter. The book is around 220 pages, but about 10 of them are blank. The printer messed up and did not print content on those pages. Does this mean that Loyd's book has errors in it? No. All it means is that the printer did not print you an accurate copy on every page. This is not "corruption", this is an accident. It has nothing to do with the KJB itself.
2.) "Which is it?" Neither one was or is corrupt. The original KJB and the KJB of today are identical aside from updates made in the English language.
3.) "This argument alone spells the end of the myth of a ‘perfectly preserved imperfection free KJV’." I wonder why Penfold won't come out and plainly state that he does not have a final authority and that he does not believe that God has perfectly preserved His words? Penfold does not believe in a "perfectly preserved imperfection free" ANYTHING!
Meanwhile, editions of the NIV and NASB are also numerous and they are actual textual changes and not editing printers errors. But Penfold won't mention that, because he is a punk.]
Let’s examine this further. ‘KJV only’ advocates state categorically that God must have kept a perfect Bible somewhere - otherwise His promises to preserve His word are worthless - yet many of them teach that no language in the world has a perfect Bible except English, and that no Englishman saw a perfect Bible until at least 1611. Samuel Gipp, a KJV only author, asserts that if a Russian wants to read the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God, he has to learn English and read the KJV! However, if, prior to 1611, no perfect book existed (in any language) which one could call the infallible word of God, there are only two options open to us - either God had failed for over 1,500 years to keep His promise, or the KJV only advocates have misinterpreted that promise. Clearly, the latter is the case.
["KJV only’ advocates state categorically that God must have kept a perfect Bible somewhere - otherwise His promises to preserve His word are worthless" OF COURSE WE STATE THAT! YOU DON'T??? WHY NOT? Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27.
"yet many of them teach that no language in the world has a perfect Bible except English" Who does that? The Bible says that it is available to "all nations" (Rom. 16:25-26).
"Samuel Gipp, a KJV only author, asserts that if a Russian wants to read the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God, he has to learn English and read the KJV!" That is Dr. Samuel Gipp actually. And the reason he said that is because there is not a Russian Bible that lines up with the preserved words found in the KJB. But there are languages that have perfect Bibles other than English, or so I am told by some fellow KJB believers that have worked on translating Bibles. I have a link to a French KJB on my KJV Sites List page.]
["KJV only’ advocates state categorically that God must have kept a perfect Bible somewhere - otherwise His promises to preserve His word are worthless" OF COURSE WE STATE THAT! YOU DON'T??? WHY NOT? Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27.
"yet many of them teach that no language in the world has a perfect Bible except English" Who does that? The Bible says that it is available to "all nations" (Rom. 16:25-26).
"Samuel Gipp, a KJV only author, asserts that if a Russian wants to read the perfect, inerrant and infallible word of God, he has to learn English and read the KJV!" That is Dr. Samuel Gipp actually. And the reason he said that is because there is not a Russian Bible that lines up with the preserved words found in the KJB. But there are languages that have perfect Bibles other than English, or so I am told by some fellow KJB believers that have worked on translating Bibles. I have a link to a French KJB on my KJV Sites List page.]
How to answer a KJV Only advocate
When a KJV onlyite asks ‘‘Where is God’s word today?’’ reply to him as follows: ‘‘Where was God’s word in 1610?’’ If he replies ‘‘I’m not interested in 1610 — I’m interested in where the word of God is now ’’ you know you have a sophist on your hands who is not prepared to discuss the issue sanely and sensibly. However, if he says ‘‘The word of God was represented in the Bibles translated by the Waldensians, Wycliffe, Tyndale and Coverdale’’ ask him if these Bibles were 100% perfect. If he answers ‘‘Yes’’ he needs to do some homework, for all these Bibles differ from the KJV 1611 (incidentally, the Waldensian Bible and Wycliffe’s Bible came from the Latin Vulgate, not the original Greek and Hebrew). However, if he answers ‘‘No’’ ask him again, ‘‘Where was the perfect inerrant preserved word of God in 1610?’’ This is a reasonable question which is not at all hypothetical. If he says the word of God was represented in the Masoretic Text of the Old Testament and the Textus Receptus of the New Testament, ask him which edition of the Textus Receptus he is referring to. From 1516 (Erasmus’ 1st edition) to 1650 (Elziver’s 3rd) more than 25 editions of the Textus Receptus were produced. Which one was the perfect word of God? If none of them was, had God failed in His promise to preserve the word of God at that stage? If the ‘KJV-onlyite’ says the word of God was preserved, prior to the KJV, not in one but in various manuscripts (thus the ‘originals’ do exist after all); however now, by a divine work of God in grace and providence, all the words of God have been put into a single book (the KJV 1769 in English), he has just defeated his own argument. He has admitted that prior to 1769, every translation and text was corrupt - while God’s word was still being preserved across a variety of Greek and Hebrew manuscripts - thus the people of God had no one book they could call the ‘word of God’ and we are back to square one - God’s promise, as interpreted by the KJVO advocates, wasn’t worth the paper it was written on prior to 1611.
[This is classic. Penfold is a idolater. He worships and obeys "the wisdom of men" rather than have faith in God's word. He believes that Church History is our authority in such matters. I am not mispresenting Penfold, read what he says. He plainly stated that if we cannot come up with the infallible word of God in one book prior to 1611, than he will not accept the idea that we have one now. Penfold bases his belief in the word of God on CHURCH HISTORY and not God's word. "When a KJV onlyite asks ‘‘Where is God’s word today?’’ reply to him as follows: ‘‘Where was God’s word in 1610?’’ If he replies ‘‘I’m not interested in 1610 — I’m interested in where the word of God is now ’’ you know you have a sophist on your hands who is not prepared to discuss the issue sanely and sensibly."
The truth of the matter is that Church History is NO authority, only the word of God is, and I can trace the book I have in my hand back to 1611. That is 400 hundred years, that is enough "church history" for me. But I can also trace most any reading found in the KJB all the way back to the 150-800 AD. That is certainly enough "church history" for me. Penfold's logic is the same as those who do not believe in the Pre-Tribulation rapture. They claim that if they cannot find anyone that teaches that doctrine in church history than it must not be true. That contradicts 1 Corinthians 2:5, That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Penfold should enlighten us and let us know what God meant in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. Penfold doesn't know!
By the way, I have never compared the TRs, but I have read the works of those that have and they say that after Erasmus onward, the changes were minor and not textual. Though the only way to know for sure is to check for yourself.]
[This is classic. Penfold is a idolater. He worships and obeys "the wisdom of men" rather than have faith in God's word. He believes that Church History is our authority in such matters. I am not mispresenting Penfold, read what he says. He plainly stated that if we cannot come up with the infallible word of God in one book prior to 1611, than he will not accept the idea that we have one now. Penfold bases his belief in the word of God on CHURCH HISTORY and not God's word. "When a KJV onlyite asks ‘‘Where is God’s word today?’’ reply to him as follows: ‘‘Where was God’s word in 1610?’’ If he replies ‘‘I’m not interested in 1610 — I’m interested in where the word of God is now ’’ you know you have a sophist on your hands who is not prepared to discuss the issue sanely and sensibly."
The truth of the matter is that Church History is NO authority, only the word of God is, and I can trace the book I have in my hand back to 1611. That is 400 hundred years, that is enough "church history" for me. But I can also trace most any reading found in the KJB all the way back to the 150-800 AD. That is certainly enough "church history" for me. Penfold's logic is the same as those who do not believe in the Pre-Tribulation rapture. They claim that if they cannot find anyone that teaches that doctrine in church history than it must not be true. That contradicts 1 Corinthians 2:5, That your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God.
Penfold should enlighten us and let us know what God meant in Joshua 1:8, Isaiah 30:8, 40:8, 55:10-11, 59:21, Psalms 12:6-7, 100:5, 117:2, 119:89-91, 119:160, 1 Peter 1:23-2:2, Matthew 5:17-18, 24:35, Mark 13:31, Luke 21:33, John 6:63, 10:35, 17:17, 2 Timothy 3:15-17, and Ephesians 5:26-27. Penfold doesn't know!
By the way, I have never compared the TRs, but I have read the works of those that have and they say that after Erasmus onward, the changes were minor and not textual. Though the only way to know for sure is to check for yourself.]
The KJV translators suggest thousands of corrections
Now let us examine an original 1611 KJV. Upon opening it you are immediately struck by the fact that, whatever the ‘KJV only’ people think, its actual translators did not believe they had picked exactly the right translation in every case. They included the following in the margin: 4,223 more literal meanings, 2,738 alternative translations and 104 variant readings (and, as an aside, 113 references to the Apocrypha). Yet many ‘KJV 1611’ folk become agitated as soon as you suggest an alternative translation even of the same Greek or Hebrew word that lies behind the KJV! Also, in the 1611 edition, there are marginal notes referring to additions and subtractions in Greek manuscripts. Next to Luke 10:22 the margin says: ‘‘Many ancient copies adde these words, And turning to his Disciples he said.’’ Next to Luke 17:36 we read: ‘‘This 36. Verse is wanting [lacking] in most of the Greek copies.’’
[And who said that men were the authority? Who ever said that God inspired people's cross references, maps, and foot notes that they put in Bibles? NOBODY. The position of King James Bible believers is that the word of God liveth and abideth forever, not cross references/maps/notes. ]
[And who said that men were the authority? Who ever said that God inspired people's cross references, maps, and foot notes that they put in Bibles? NOBODY. The position of King James Bible believers is that the word of God liveth and abideth forever, not cross references/maps/notes. ]
Imperfections in the KJV
While it is possible to put up an ‘argument’ in favour of every single reading in the KJV (even those that lack any manuscript backing whatsoever), the attempt puts the ‘KJV-only’ defender through some incredible gymnastics. By contrast, the honest fair-minded student of scripture will quickly recognise the real problems presented by the following brief list of imperfections, mistakes and erroneous translations in the KJV:
1. Calling the Holy Spirit ‘it’ in John 1:32, Rom 8:16/26 and I Peter 1:11.
The Holy Spirit is a person and should never be called ‘it’ in English. Interestingly in the Greek text of Mark 9:25 and other similar passages the word demon, a neuter noun, is followed by the neuter form of the pronoun ‘autos’ which the KJV nevertheless translates as ‘him’, not ‘it’. If they felt grammatically comfortable in translating a neuter pronoun as ‘him’ when referring to a demon, why could they not do the same for the Holy Spirit in John, Romans and 1st Peter? Of Bibles in wide circulation today, only the KJV and the Jehovah's Witnesses New World Translation call the Holy Spirit an ‘it’.
[The Greek word is neuter, so the KJB is a perfect translation. Just like the Lord is called "it" (Gen. 3:15, Matt. 14:27-28) "that holy thing" (Luke 1:35), and "that which" (1 John 1:1). Why does Penfold think he can tell God what words He should use to describe Himself?
Why didn't Penfold bring up this: all the new perversions such as the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV, etc. all refer to Satan as "the bright and morning star" or "the day star" in Isaiah 14:12? Those are both titles for Jesus Christ. Here is my blog post on that: http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/corrupt-bibles-morning-star-in-isaiah.html
Isaiah 14:
[4] That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
[5] The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
[6] He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
[7] The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
[8] Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
[9] Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
[10] All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
[11] Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
[13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
[15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
[16] They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
[17] That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
"Lucifer" (vs 12) is the KJB translation of the Hebrew word "hêlêl". The word "Lucifer" is one of the English words for Satan, the word itself being derived from the Latin bibles. The word as an adjective, as used in Isaiah 14:12, means "light bringing".
Satan falls from heaven as lightning and he also transforms himself into an angel of light (a false light).
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore "Lucifer" (adj. "light bringing") is an adequate description of Satan.
There are many angels of God, yet there is only one "THE angel of the Lord" and that is Jesus Christ (Gen. 48:16, Exod. 3:2-6, 23:20-23, 32:34, Acts 27:23, Gal. 4:14). There are many sons of God (Gen. 6:2-4, Job 1:6, 2:1), but there is only one "THE Son of God" (Dan. 3:25, John 20:31). There are many "morning stars" (Job 38:7, Rev. 1:20) but there is only one "THE bright and morning star" (Rev. 22:16, Num. 24:17, Mal. 4:2). At least that is how it is in the REAL Bible, the KJB. But look at how the modern perversions have freely given Christ's titles to Satan.
Note: Day Star is another one of Christ's names: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" (2 Pet. 1:19)
AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!
AMPLIFIED
Isaiah 14:12 How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!]
COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 How you’ve fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn! You are cut down to earth, helpless on your back!
COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 “How did you come to fall from the heavens, morning star, son of the dawn? How did you come to be cut to the ground, conqueror of nations?
CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 You, the bright morning star, have fallen from the sky! You brought down other nations; now you are brought down.
EASY TO READ VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 You were like the morning star, but you have fallen from the sky. In the past, all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down.
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
EXPANDED BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, ·morning star [or day star; or shining one; still addressing the king of Babylon, though sometimes applied to Satan], ·even though you were as bright as the rising sun [ son of the dawn]! In the past all the nations on earth ·bowed down before you [or were laid low by you],
but now you have been cut down.
GOD'S WORD
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, you morning star, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the ground, you conqueror of nations!
GOOD NEWS TRANSLATION
Isaiah 14:12 King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground.
HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations,
you have been cut down to the ground.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, Day Star, son of the Dawn! How you have been thrown down to earth, you who laid low the nation!
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!Why would you use a "bible" that gives Christ's names to Satan? (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:5-6, Jer. 23:30, Jer. 23:36, 2 Cor. 2:17, 2 Cor. 4:2, Rev. 22:18-19)
[The Greek word is neuter, so the KJB is a perfect translation. Just like the Lord is called "it" (Gen. 3:15, Matt. 14:27-28) "that holy thing" (Luke 1:35), and "that which" (1 John 1:1). Why does Penfold think he can tell God what words He should use to describe Himself?
Why didn't Penfold bring up this: all the new perversions such as the NASB, RSV, ESV, NRSV, NLT, NIV, etc. all refer to Satan as "the bright and morning star" or "the day star" in Isaiah 14:12? Those are both titles for Jesus Christ. Here is my blog post on that: http://av1611studyblog.blogspot.com/2015/01/corrupt-bibles-morning-star-in-isaiah.html
Isaiah 14:
[4] That thou shalt take up this proverb against the king of Babylon, and say, How hath the oppressor ceased! the golden city ceased!
[5] The LORD hath broken the staff of the wicked, and the sceptre of the rulers.
[6] He who smote the people in wrath with a continual stroke, he that ruled the nations in anger, is persecuted, and none hindereth.
[7] The whole earth is at rest, and is quiet: they break forth into singing.
[8] Yea, the fir trees rejoice at thee, and the cedars of Lebanon, saying, Since thou art laid down, no feller is come up against us.
[9] Hell from beneath is moved for thee to meet thee at thy coming: it stirreth up the dead for thee, even all the chief ones of the earth; it hath raised up from their thrones all the kings of the nations.
[10] All they shall speak and say unto thee, Art thou also become weak as we? art thou become like unto us?
[11] Thy pomp is brought down to the grave, and the noise of thy viols: the worm is spread under thee, and the worms cover thee.
[12] How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations!
[13] For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north:
[14] I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High.
[15] Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
[16] They that see thee shall narrowly look upon thee, and consider thee, saying, Is this the man that made the earth to tremble, that did shake kingdoms;
[17] That made the world as a wilderness, and destroyed the cities thereof; that opened not the house of his prisoners?
"Lucifer" (vs 12) is the KJB translation of the Hebrew word "hêlêl". The word "Lucifer" is one of the English words for Satan, the word itself being derived from the Latin bibles. The word as an adjective, as used in Isaiah 14:12, means "light bringing".
Satan falls from heaven as lightning and he also transforms himself into an angel of light (a false light).
Luke 10:18 And he said unto them, I beheld Satan as lightning fall from heaven.
2 Corinthians 11:14 And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore "Lucifer" (adj. "light bringing") is an adequate description of Satan.
There are many angels of God, yet there is only one "THE angel of the Lord" and that is Jesus Christ (Gen. 48:16, Exod. 3:2-6, 23:20-23, 32:34, Acts 27:23, Gal. 4:14). There are many sons of God (Gen. 6:2-4, Job 1:6, 2:1), but there is only one "THE Son of God" (Dan. 3:25, John 20:31). There are many "morning stars" (Job 38:7, Rev. 1:20) but there is only one "THE bright and morning star" (Rev. 22:16, Num. 24:17, Mal. 4:2). At least that is how it is in the REAL Bible, the KJB. But look at how the modern perversions have freely given Christ's titles to Satan.
Note: Day Star is another one of Christ's names: "We have also a more sure word of prophecy; whereunto ye do well that ye take heed, as unto a light that shineth in a dark place, until the day dawn, and the day star arise in your hearts:" (2 Pet. 1:19)
AMERICAN STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O day-star, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, that didst lay low the nations!
AMPLIFIED
Isaiah 14:12 How have you fallen from heaven, O light-bringer and daystar, son of the morning! How you have been cut down to the ground, you who weakened and laid low the nations [O blasphemous, satanic king of Babylon!]
COMMON ENGLISH BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 How you’ve fallen from heaven, morning star, son of dawn! You are cut down to earth, helpless on your back!
COMPLETE JEWISH BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 “How did you come to fall from the heavens, morning star, son of the dawn? How did you come to be cut to the ground, conqueror of nations?
CONTEMPORARY ENGLISH VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 You, the bright morning star, have fallen from the sky! You brought down other nations; now you are brought down.
EASY TO READ VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 You were like the morning star, but you have fallen from the sky. In the past, all the nations on earth bowed down before you, but now you have been cut down.
ENGLISH STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 “How you are fallen from heaven, O Day Star, son of Dawn! How you are cut down to the ground, you who laid the nations low!
EXPANDED BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, ·morning star [or day star; or shining one; still addressing the king of Babylon, though sometimes applied to Satan], ·even though you were as bright as the rising sun [ son of the dawn]! In the past all the nations on earth ·bowed down before you [or were laid low by you],
but now you have been cut down.
GOD'S WORD
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, you morning star, son of the dawn! How you have been cut down to the ground, you conqueror of nations!
GOOD NEWS TRANSLATION
Isaiah 14:12 King of Babylon, bright morning star, you have fallen from heaven! In the past you conquered nations, but now you have been thrown to the ground.
HOLMAN CHRISTIAN STANDARD BIBLE
Isaiah 14:12 Shining morning star, how you have fallen from the heavens! You destroyer of nations,
you have been cut down to the ground.
INTERNATIONAL STANDARD VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 “How you have fallen from heaven, Day Star, son of the Dawn! How you have been thrown down to earth, you who laid low the nation!
NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION
Isaiah 14:12 How you have fallen from heaven, morning star, son of the dawn! You have been cast down to the earth, you who once laid low the nations!Why would you use a "bible" that gives Christ's names to Satan? (Deut. 4:2, Prov. 30:5-6, Jer. 23:30, Jer. 23:36, 2 Cor. 2:17, 2 Cor. 4:2, Rev. 22:18-19)
2. Translating the Greek word paska as ‘Easter’ in Acts 12:4.
All 28 other times the KJV translates this word correctly as ‘Passover’. The attempt by ‘KJV only’ teachers to defend the ‘Easter’ reading by saying that the feast of unleavened bread had commenced, so the Passover must have already come and gone, is refuted by Luke 22:1: ‘‘Now the feast of unleavened bread drew nigh, which is called the Passover.’’
[Penfold simply does not know what he is talking about. No Greek Text says "passover" in Acts 12:4. They all say "pascha". Pascha has historically been used by Greeks to mean BOTH "passover" and "easter". There is no Greek word for Easter other than pascha! The Greek word Pascha means Easter. Check any Greek source. Buy an Oxford Greek Dictionary, a Greek Easter card, or go to Google Translate.com .
As for Luke 22:1, Dr. Peter Ruckman says,
" Note that "the feast of unleavened bread" in verse 1 is defined as "the DAY of unleavened bread" in verse 7. This means that "the feast of unleavened bread" in verse 1 is not the seven-day feast that starts the day after Passover (Lev. 23:5-6). The Passover is called "the feast of unleavened bread" here because the Passover lamb was to be eaten with bread (Exod. 12:8, 18; Num. 9:11; Deut. 16:2-3).
The reason this is so important is because all the critics of the AV say that the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistake; the proper translation should be "Passover" (once again the NKJV reads with the NASV and NIV). But Acts 12:4 couldn't possibly be a reference to the Passover, for "Then were the DAYS [plural] of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3). "The DAY [singular] of unleavened bread"--the Passover (Luke 22:1;7)--was over and done with (Lev. 23:5-6). "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is obviously a pagan feast--celebrated by a pagan, Roman Idumean (Edomite) who worshipped "Ashtaroth" (Judg. 2:13, 1:6; 1 Sam. 7:3; 1 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:13)--that conincided with the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3)--NOT Passover."
(The Book of Luke, Bible Believer's Commentary Series by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman) ]
[Penfold simply does not know what he is talking about. No Greek Text says "passover" in Acts 12:4. They all say "pascha". Pascha has historically been used by Greeks to mean BOTH "passover" and "easter". There is no Greek word for Easter other than pascha! The Greek word Pascha means Easter. Check any Greek source. Buy an Oxford Greek Dictionary, a Greek Easter card, or go to Google Translate.com .
As for Luke 22:1, Dr. Peter Ruckman says,
" Note that "the feast of unleavened bread" in verse 1 is defined as "the DAY of unleavened bread" in verse 7. This means that "the feast of unleavened bread" in verse 1 is not the seven-day feast that starts the day after Passover (Lev. 23:5-6). The Passover is called "the feast of unleavened bread" here because the Passover lamb was to be eaten with bread (Exod. 12:8, 18; Num. 9:11; Deut. 16:2-3).
The reason this is so important is because all the critics of the AV say that the word "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is a mistake; the proper translation should be "Passover" (once again the NKJV reads with the NASV and NIV). But Acts 12:4 couldn't possibly be a reference to the Passover, for "Then were the DAYS [plural] of unleavened bread" (Acts 12:3). "The DAY [singular] of unleavened bread"--the Passover (Luke 22:1;7)--was over and done with (Lev. 23:5-6). "Easter" in Acts 12:4 is obviously a pagan feast--celebrated by a pagan, Roman Idumean (Edomite) who worshipped "Ashtaroth" (Judg. 2:13, 1:6; 1 Sam. 7:3; 1 Kings 11:5; 2 Kings 23:13)--that conincided with the seven-day Feast of Unleavened Bread (Acts 12:3)--NOT Passover."
(The Book of Luke, Bible Believer's Commentary Series by Dr. Peter S. Ruckman) ]
3. Paraphrasing the Greek words mee ginomai as ‘‘God forbid.’’
The word ‘God’ is not a translation of any Greek word in this case. Thus it is not a ‘perfect’ translation. Even if one feels it expresses the ‘meaning’ of the Greek in an imaginative way, it is simply not a perfect translation (“May it not be” is a literal translation). Defending it by saying that the word ‘God’ is in italics is not the point. That just raises a further question - is this particular italicised word a perfect, infallible choice? If not, the KJV is not perfect. Note also that in the OT the KJV often uses the paraphrase ‘‘Would God’’ (e.g. Num 14:2, where again, there is no word for God in the Hebrew).
[All the other English versions prior to the KJB use the same expression, "God forbid" (Wycliffe 1380, 1395; Tyndale 1525, 1534; Coverdale 1535; The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1539, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557, 1587, 1599, 1602, and the Douay-Rheims version of 1582). I wonder why Penfold did not mention that? Probably because he just so happens to hate ONE BOOK. In fact, according to Mr. Will Kinney's research, look at all the versions that use the same phrase:
""God forbid" is also the reading found in John Wesley's N.T. translation of 1755, Mace N.T. done in 1729, Whiston's Primitive New Testament of 1745, the Worsley Version of 1790, the Book of the New Covenant 1836 (Granville Penn), the English Revised Version (of Westcott-Hort fame) of 1881, and the American Standard Version of 1901. The Douay version of 1950 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version of 1952 in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, J. B. Phillips has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, and The Update Bible of 2003 have "God forbid" in all the same passages as does the King James Bible.
Other English Bible translations that use the phrase "GOD FORBID" in places like Romans 3:4 are The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Family of Yah 2001 "Elohim forbid", The Tomson New Testament 2002 - "God forbid", the Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), the Bond Slave Version 2009, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the 2011 The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible, The BRG Bible 2012,
The Common English Bible 2011 - “GOD FORBID that we should rebel against the Lord” (Joshua 22:29), “Then the people answered, “GOD FORBID that we ever leave the Lord to serve other gods!” (Joshua 24:16), “GOD FORBID that I should do that,” he said. “Isn’t this the blood of men who risked their lives?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Then Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This won’t happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22), “But as for me, GOD FORBID that I should boast about anything except for the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 6:14)
Maybe these Common English Bible translators should have consulted with Mr. Kutilek before they made all these "blunders", ya think? Oh, wait. There's more.
The New RSV has "heaven forbid" in Luke 20:16 (likewise no heaven nor forbid-according to Kutilek). By the way the NRSV also has "God forbid" in Mat. 16:22, as well as the RSV and the NASB where likewise it is not "in the Greek" as the scholars like to say. The 1998 Complete Jewish Bible has "Heaven forbid" in passages like Luke 20:16 and Romans 3:4 etc.
The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17,
The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"
The Living Bible 1971 has "God forbid" in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, 1 Samuel 26:11 "But GOD FORBID that I should kill the man he has chosen to be king!", 1 Chronicles 11:19 and in Job 22:18 "GOD FORBID that I should say a thing like that."
The Expanded Bible 2011 has "GOD FORBID" in 1 Chronicles 11:19, Matthew 16:22 and Luke 20:16.
The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - “My GOD FORBID that I should do such a thing! Am I to drink the blood of these men who went and put their lives in jeopardy?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Heaven forbid!” (Romans 3:4, 6)
The Lexham English Bible has ''God forbid" in Matthew 16:22 - "And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, GOD FORBID, Lord! This will never happen to you!”
The International Standard Version 2014 has "GOD FORBID" in 1 Samuel 24:6 - "He told his men, “GOD FORBID that I should do this thing to your majesty, the Lord’s anointed, by stretching out my hand against him, since he’s the Lord’s anointed.”, and in 1 Chronicles 11:19.
Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 has GOD FORBID in 1 Chronicles 11:19 - “GOD FORBID that I should do this!”, and in Matthew 16:22 - “So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This must not happen to you!”"
See Mr. Will Kinney's full article here: http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/godforbid.htm
Why didn't Penfold mention any of those? Because he is a punk]
[All the other English versions prior to the KJB use the same expression, "God forbid" (Wycliffe 1380, 1395; Tyndale 1525, 1534; Coverdale 1535; The Great Bible (Cranmer) 1539, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1557, 1587, 1599, 1602, and the Douay-Rheims version of 1582). I wonder why Penfold did not mention that? Probably because he just so happens to hate ONE BOOK. In fact, according to Mr. Will Kinney's research, look at all the versions that use the same phrase:
""God forbid" is also the reading found in John Wesley's N.T. translation of 1755, Mace N.T. done in 1729, Whiston's Primitive New Testament of 1745, the Worsley Version of 1790, the Book of the New Covenant 1836 (Granville Penn), the English Revised Version (of Westcott-Hort fame) of 1881, and the American Standard Version of 1901. The Douay version of 1950 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16; Romans, I Corinthians and Galatians, The World English Bible in Luke 20:16 and Gal. 2:17, Weymouth Version in Mat. 16:22, Luke 20:16 and Gal. 6:14, the Revised Standard Version of 1952 in Mt. 16:22 and Luke 20:16, J. B. Phillips has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Jerusalem bible 1985 has "God forbid" in Luke 20:16, the New Living Translation 1996 in Luke 20:16, and Galatians 6:14, and the 1998 Third Millenium Bible, and The Update Bible of 2003 have "God forbid" in all the same passages as does the King James Bible.
Other English Bible translations that use the phrase "GOD FORBID" in places like Romans 3:4 are The Amplified Bible 1987, The Word of Yah 1993, God's First Truth 1999, The Sacred Family of Yah 2001 "Elohim forbid", The Tomson New Testament 2002 - "God forbid", the Evidence Bible 2003, The Resurrection Life New Testament 2005 (Vince Garcia), the Bond Slave Version 2009, The New European Version 2010, Conservative Bible 2011, the Aramaic Bible in Plain English, the 2011 The Work of God's Children Illustrated Bible, The BRG Bible 2012,
The Common English Bible 2011 - “GOD FORBID that we should rebel against the Lord” (Joshua 22:29), “Then the people answered, “GOD FORBID that we ever leave the Lord to serve other gods!” (Joshua 24:16), “GOD FORBID that I should do that,” he said. “Isn’t this the blood of men who risked their lives?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Then Peter took hold of Jesus and, scolding him, began to correct him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This won’t happen to you.” (Matthew 16:22), “But as for me, GOD FORBID that I should boast about anything except for the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.” (Galatians 6:14)
Maybe these Common English Bible translators should have consulted with Mr. Kutilek before they made all these "blunders", ya think? Oh, wait. There's more.
The Holy Bible, Modern English Version 2014 (by Military Bible Association) not only has “GOD FORBID” in Romans 3:4 - GOD FORBID! Let God be true, and every man a liar. As it is written: “That You may be justified in Your words, and may prevail in Your judging.”, but also in Romans 3:6, 31; 6:2, 15; 7:7, 13; 9:14; 11:1; 1 Cor. 6:15, Galatians 2:17, 3:21 and 6:14 - "GOD FORBID that I should boast, except in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ"
The modern Hebrew Names Version contains "God forbid" in Gal. 2:17,
The New Century Version has "heaven forbid" in all the same verses where the KJB has "God forbid"
The Living Bible 1971 has "God forbid" in Romans 3:6, Gal 2:17, and 6:14, 1 Samuel 26:11 "But GOD FORBID that I should kill the man he has chosen to be king!", 1 Chronicles 11:19 and in Job 22:18 "GOD FORBID that I should say a thing like that."
The Expanded Bible 2011 has "GOD FORBID" in 1 Chronicles 11:19, Matthew 16:22 and Luke 20:16.
The Complete Jewish Bible 1998 - “My GOD FORBID that I should do such a thing! Am I to drink the blood of these men who went and put their lives in jeopardy?” (1 Chronicles 11:19), “Heaven forbid!” (Romans 3:4, 6)
The Lexham English Bible has ''God forbid" in Matthew 16:22 - "And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, GOD FORBID, Lord! This will never happen to you!”
Dan Wallace’s NET version 2006 has GOD FORBID in 1 Chronicles 11:19 - “GOD FORBID that I should do this!”, and in Matthew 16:22 - “So Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him: “GOD FORBID, Lord! This must not happen to you!”"
See Mr. Will Kinney's full article here: http://www.brandplucked.webs.com/godforbid.htm
Why didn't Penfold mention any of those? Because he is a punk]
4. Missing the deity of Christ in Titus 2:13 and II Peter 1:1.
Through ignorance of the ‘Granville Sharp Rule’, which was not defined until the late 1700’s, the KJV reads, ‘‘God and our Saviour Jesus Christ’’, rather than the correct ‘‘our God and Saviour Jesus Christ.’’
[It is missing any neither place. Titus 2:13 says "God and our Saviour JESUS CHRIST". How is the Deity of Christ not there? How about the omission of the Deity of Christ in the modern versions in 1 Timothy 3:16? Or Luke 2:33? Or Romans 14:12? etc.]
[It is missing any neither place. Titus 2:13 says "God and our Saviour JESUS CHRIST". How is the Deity of Christ not there? How about the omission of the Deity of Christ in the modern versions in 1 Timothy 3:16? Or Luke 2:33? Or Romans 14:12? etc.]
5. Deliberately introducing specifically ecclesiastical terms for the purpose of making the KJV more ‘episcopal’.
The historian, Paine, wrote that it was Archbishop Richard Bancroft who insisted on using ‘‘the glorious word bishopric even for Judas, in Acts 1:20’’ and noted that Miles Smith, the final editor of the KJV 1611 with Thomas Bilson ‘‘protested that after he and Bilson has finished, Bishop Bancroft made 14 more changes’’ (The Men Behind The KJV, p. 128). Another historian, McClure, noted: ‘‘Bancroft, that he might stick the name [church] to a building, would have it applied, in the 19th chapter of Acts, to the idols’ temples!’’ (KJV Translators Revived, p. 221). Bancroft was not only the general overseer of the KJV translation project, but as Archbishop of Canterbury, was also the ruling spirit in the High Commission Court, a kind of British Inquisition, which sought to enforce the State Church episcopacy and suppress the civil and religious liberties of non-conformists such as Puritans and Anabaptists. The obviously wrong actions of this prejudiced man have to be construed, by ‘KJV only’ perpetrators, as the intervention of the over-ruling providential hand of God. Without the insertion of these episcopally biased words, the word of God, the ‘KJV 1611’, would not have been perfect!
[I have no idea what you are talking about or why it matters. You sound like the type of person that has to have everything exactly to your liking. You should translate your own Bible exactly to your liking and use that from now on so that you can quit belly aching about the King James Bible.
By the way, re: churches/temples in Acts 19, the words "church" and "temple" are used interchangeably in the Bible.
John 2:21 "But he spake of the TEMPLE of his body."
Ephesians 1:22-23 "...the CHURCH, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Ephesians 2:21 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy TEMPLE in the Lord:"
1 Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual HOUSE, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
Not to mention there are CHURCHES called "Baptist Temple" or "Bible Baptist TEMPLE" etc.
The words are interchangeable, according to the scriptures. ]
[I have no idea what you are talking about or why it matters. You sound like the type of person that has to have everything exactly to your liking. You should translate your own Bible exactly to your liking and use that from now on so that you can quit belly aching about the King James Bible.
By the way, re: churches/temples in Acts 19, the words "church" and "temple" are used interchangeably in the Bible.
John 2:21 "But he spake of the TEMPLE of his body."
Ephesians 1:22-23 "...the CHURCH, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all."
Ephesians 2:21 "In whom all the building fitly framed together groweth unto an holy TEMPLE in the Lord:"
1 Peter 2:5 "Ye also, as lively stones, are built up a spiritual HOUSE, an holy priesthood, to offer up spiritual sacrifices, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ."
Not to mention there are CHURCHES called "Baptist Temple" or "Bible Baptist TEMPLE" etc.
The words are interchangeable, according to the scriptures. ]
Added to these errors are passages that are almost impossible to understand without a study aid of some kind. What use is a ‘perfect’ translation if you can’t understand its obscure language? Take for instance II Cor 6:11-13. What does this mean: ‘‘our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompense in the same (I speak as unto my children) be ye also enlarged ’’? Quite a number of passages in Job are practically unintelligible in the KJV without external help (e.g. Job 28:1-10).
[That is not difficult. But how about The Message "bible"? Is that up to date enough for you? That version uses terms like "turd", "bull dozer", "truckload", "always cooking up something nasty", and "nasty surprises". The Message is so slang that it is hard to understand. How come Bible correctors only bring up "archaic" words in the KJB and not slang words in the modern versions?
But I find your point about " obscure language" to be interesting. You believe that God has only preserved His word in Hebrew and Koine Greek, but aren't those OBSCURE LANGUAGES??? They are especially more obscure than the King James Bible.]
[That is not difficult. But how about The Message "bible"? Is that up to date enough for you? That version uses terms like "turd", "bull dozer", "truckload", "always cooking up something nasty", and "nasty surprises". The Message is so slang that it is hard to understand. How come Bible correctors only bring up "archaic" words in the KJB and not slang words in the modern versions?
But I find your point about " obscure language" to be interesting. You believe that God has only preserved His word in Hebrew and Koine Greek, but aren't those OBSCURE LANGUAGES??? They are especially more obscure than the King James Bible.]
So what is the word of God today?
If God, prior to the invention of printing, kept His promise of preservation by letting the word of God exist as a complete entity across thousands of manuscripts, but not in any single perfect manuscript, there is no need, nor is it possible, to confer infallibility on one English translation today. The word of God exists wherever a faithful translation is made of what was originally written. To a high degree, that is what the KJV is. However, no single book, even in Greek and Hebrew, has ever existed that had every single letter and word of the entire Bible in place - in the right place. Dean Burgon, one of the KJV’s greatest defenders, wrote: ‘‘...That by a perpetual miracle, sacred manuscripts would be protected all down the ages against depraving influences of whatever sort, was not to have been expected; certainly, was never promised.’’ (The Revision Revised, p. 335).
[Let me help Penfold state what he believes, a little plainer.
"kept His promise of preservation by letting the word of God exist as a complete entity across thousands of manuscripts but not in any single perfect manuscript" What Penfold means by this is that the word of God is everywhere but nowhere. We have no certainty of anything, all we have is scattered pieces of paper that 'scholars' can look at and tell us what belongs in our Bibles and what doesn't. The scholars can invent their own systems of deciding what manuscripts are accurate and which ones aren't.
Meanwhile the Bible says:
"your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:6)
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Ps. 118:8)
"...I trust in thy word." (Ps. 119:42)
Penfold denies that we have "all authority" and final authority which is the word of God (Titus 1:9, 2:15).
"The word of God exists wherever a faithful translation is made of what was originally written." Of course! Every 6 year old kid in Vacation Bible School knows that. What we need to know is WHAT exactly was "originally written".....you don't know and couldn't tell us if your soul depended on it.
"However, no single book, even in Greek and Hebrew, has ever existed that had every single letter and word of the entire Bible in place - in the right place." Penfold does not ever read his Bible, all he does is complain about how it is not really "pure" "holy" "given by inspiration of God" etc. If he did read his Bible, he would know that the word of God was once in Hebrew in one Book.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
As for the Burgon quote, all KJB Onlies agree with it. We all believe that not every manuscript is protected by God, there are MANY corruptions (2 Cor. 2:17, 4:2).
Penfold's arguments are based on church history and the "wisdom of men", not in the power of God.
[Let me help Penfold state what he believes, a little plainer.
"kept His promise of preservation by letting the word of God exist as a complete entity across thousands of manuscripts but not in any single perfect manuscript" What Penfold means by this is that the word of God is everywhere but nowhere. We have no certainty of anything, all we have is scattered pieces of paper that 'scholars' can look at and tell us what belongs in our Bibles and what doesn't. The scholars can invent their own systems of deciding what manuscripts are accurate and which ones aren't.
Meanwhile the Bible says:
"your faith should not stand in the wisdom of men, but in the power of God." (1 Cor. 2:6)
"It is better to trust in the LORD than to put confidence in man." (Ps. 118:8)
"...I trust in thy word." (Ps. 119:42)
Penfold denies that we have "all authority" and final authority which is the word of God (Titus 1:9, 2:15).
"The word of God exists wherever a faithful translation is made of what was originally written." Of course! Every 6 year old kid in Vacation Bible School knows that. What we need to know is WHAT exactly was "originally written".....you don't know and couldn't tell us if your soul depended on it.
"However, no single book, even in Greek and Hebrew, has ever existed that had every single letter and word of the entire Bible in place - in the right place." Penfold does not ever read his Bible, all he does is complain about how it is not really "pure" "holy" "given by inspiration of God" etc. If he did read his Bible, he would know that the word of God was once in Hebrew in one Book.
Joshua 1:8 This book of the law shall not depart out of thy mouth; but thou shalt meditate therein day and night, that thou mayest observe to do according to all that is written therein: for then thou shalt make thy way prosperous, and then thou shalt have good success.
As for the Burgon quote, all KJB Onlies agree with it. We all believe that not every manuscript is protected by God, there are MANY corruptions (2 Cor. 2:17, 4:2).
Penfold's arguments are based on church history and the "wisdom of men", not in the power of God.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Your questions or comments welcome.