Want Some Answers ???King James Error
 Pastor Travis
 Pastor Roger
 Bro Kofler
Thanks for your email, although it’s very brief and avoids the difficult issues. I would like to reply to your email and cover every point raised. You wrote,
>>I would like to respond to your e-mail-First drop the Dr from your name it is apparent you are not a student of the preserved word of God.<<
The idea of dropping the 'Pastor' or “Dr” from names has little to do with the KJ sideshow “Pastor” Travis. You wrote,
>>I am just a little nobody I have nothing to claim but Gods leading me 21 years ago to come to the frigid north and start a Bible Preaching Church holding forth the word of truth<<
Very noble. You wrote,
>>You quoted from the NIV any student of the Word would know that all versions the last 100 years have come from corrupt text only the KJV is a safe standard to follow<<
I will come to the text question soon. But is the NIV the Word of God? Why not? Does it contain parts of God’s Word? Can one be converted through reading it? “Being born again, not of corruptible seed, but of incorruptible, by the word of God” [1 Pet 1:23]. Please define what you mean by the Word of God. And how much of God’s Word is in other versions. God confirms that men have received His Word by giving them the Holy Spirit [Ac.2:38, 5:32 Gal.3:3,5]. So if I only spoke Chinese, I could know God and walk in truth, yet having never read the KJV. Why? Because salvation, knowing God and truth have nothing to do with learning English. And because there’s no uncertain doctrine in our translations resulting from so-called translation mistakes. You wrote,
>>Find the Blood,Virgin Birth,Deity,Hell,in these new versions you cannot<<
I can look -
Blood – NIV – Eph.1:7 2:13 6:12 Col.1:20 Heb.2:14 9:7 [occurs 92 NT alone]
Virgin – NIV – Mt.1:23 Lk.1:34 1 Cor.7:28,34,36,37,38 2 Cor.11:2
Birth – NIV – Mt.1:18,21,23,25 24:8 Mk.13:8 Lk.1:14,15,31,57 2:7
Deity – NIV – Col.2:9 [This word does NOT occur in the KJV, Why not ?]
Hell – NIV – Mt.5:22,29,30 10:28 18:9 23:15,33 Mk.9:43,45,47 Lk.12:5 [14 times]
This reveals how little you know of “new versions”. You wrote,
>>I am not a Ruckmanite, I am an old fashion God Preserving Bible preaching servant--You are ever learning and never able to come to the knowledge of truth on a settled word<<
Coming to “the knowledge of the truth” has nothing to do with which translation one prefers or uses. According to the Bible it refers to those who come to know Christ as their Saviour [2 Tim.2:25 Titus 1:1-2 1 Tim.2:4]. But it’s interesting your definition of “truth” relates to the KJV because Jesus would disagree [Jn14:6]. You are twisting Scripture and giving words and verses meaning that the original writers never intended. You are fabricating something that is not in the Bible, making it say something it does not. In some ways that is “old fashion” although the KJ gang only formed in the last century. You wrote,
>>20 years from now you will still be looking for God's Word and I hold it today in my hand in the KJV text<<
20 years from now the KJV will be even harder to read, even less read. Is that what you want? A ‘museum piece’ on display? I hold God’s Word “today in my hand” it's called the Bible. You argue over which version. Common sense tells most Christians there are many versions or translations of the Bible. Whether KJV or NIV the "V" stands for 'version'. Millions of Christians [who can't speak English] could offer you their version, but you would burn it. Do you know what’s really sad Travis? You have NOTHING to offer them that they can read. You offer them a book, which they CANNOT read. You wrote,
>>-Question NIV has 7000 deletions compared to the KJV are you telling me there is 7000 mistakes in the old text?<<
It only takes one error to fail the perfect test. You tell me, did the 1611 have any errors? Christians have always been translating the Bible into other languages. Before the Printing Press (1455) all literature was laboriously hand copied. When scribes hand-copied documents they made mistakes which resulted in errors intruding over the centuries. The more frequently copies were made, the more errors the copies acquired. And of all the thousands of MSS today there’s none without error and no two agree exactly. So it’s nonsense to argue any MS (or text-type) is inerrant, that term must be reserved for the originals. Early MSS generally have few errors compared to those of the late middle Ages because less copying between MS and the autograph means better copies. Although some early MSS were carelessly copied and their early date does not mean greater accuracy.
Yet today’s KJV is not the “word-for-word…unaltered 1611”. The orthographical errors alone verify a huge numbers of alterations
In 1612 the KJV under went the first reprint for corrections. In 1613 another edition, which corrected some errors but introduced others. It contained over 300 differences from the 1611. Criticisms resulted in a further revision in 1629. In 1638 an attempt was made to produce an "authentique corrected Bible". This was undertaken by a committee including two of the original translators. These two ‘original translators’ recognised errors in the 1611 requiring attention. In 1653 there was another call for revision because of errors in printing, translation, and language but nothing came of the proposal. In 1675 a spelling revision was made. In 1762 another corrected edition. And yet another in 1769. KJ radicals are forced to admit this 1769 is the KJV used today and they don’t tell us which KJV has less errors, the 1611 or 1769?
So there has been a long history of changes and errors. In 1631 an error resulted in the KJV been called the “Wicked Bible” and in 1795 been called the “Murderer’s Bible”. And so the same criticisms you make about other versions are true of the KJV.
One KJ radical wrote to me saying there were about “24,000” changes in the KJV. Resulting from typographical, textual, spelling mistakes and printing errors. He ensured me “these errors have been corrected” [his words not mine]. But he also wrote, “If you change ANYTHING you are a Bible Corrector” And “How can the Word of God contain even ONE error?” It’s amazing if you can’t see the contradiction here. I ask you, how can an honest person believe the 1611 is inerrant when confronted by 24,000 mistakes?
Does 24,000 mistakes mean we must now go “looking” for God’s Word? No! Because Biblical faith is not “faith” in a language translation. When Paul says the “just shall live by faith” it is faith in “ - - the gospel, because it is the power of God for salvation” [See Rom.1:15-16]. While I have “faith” in God’s Word, translation mistakes don’t rob me of truth or deny me God’s promises. When I read words like “unicorn” in the KJV [Deut.33:17] I don’t throw away the KJV or wonder if I have eternal life. You wrote,
>>There is a warning in the last chapter of Revelation adding to and taking away from the Word<<
You assume Rev.22:18 is referring to the KJV or the TR. What John is saying here is that his book is not to be falsified by addition or excision, by the interpolation of unauthorized doctrines or the neglect of essential ones (compare Deut 4:2; 12:32).
There's many well-known passages affirming the inspiration of Scripture and the sanctity and immutability of God's work (eg. Dt.4:2 Pro.30:5-6 Ps.119:89,32 Rev.22:19 etc). These verses are so frequently cited as if their existence entails the adoption of the TR. Even if your interpretation of the cited were correct, you are left with an insoluble problem in the Byzantine tradition itself [ie No two MSS agree perfectly]. If however, your theological argument is to be taken in the rigorous way you want me to take it, your own preferred text-type falls under condemnation along with the other text-types. There is only a difference of degree between the textual variants that exist within one textual tradition and the textual variants found when two or more textual traditions are compared. If verbal inspiration is theologically tied to one textual tradition, it does not escape the kind of problems presented if more than one textual tradition is admitted.
The TR in particular has major problems to overcome. A dozen or so readings in the KJV have no support in any Greek MS whatever. The last few verses of Revelation can be traced back to Erasmus who had to prepare a Greek MS for these by translating back from the Vulgate. If you condemn those who add to God's Word, you must urge us to throw away our KJV along with the other "perversions” you radicals speak of. You wrote,
>>May the Good Lord open your eyes to the truth you are just quoting from Dr. Bottlestopper on your views= God can save anyone in anyway he shall choose even thru nature<<
Again you associate ‘truth’ with one version of the Bible. If the KJV is incorrect on anything, then you are stuck. You are committed to the error regardless of anything. In Heb.4:10 the KJV says “For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day”. What? Jesus hasn’t given rest? Then what does this mean? Heb.4:10 speaks of Joshua not Jesus [see a modern translation]. But you are committed to error or contradiction in the KJV and must defend it regardless of "the truth".
In order to believe what you do, you ignore truth. You don’t allow the Holy Spirit to interpret Scripture, for you the English WORDS in the KJV are more important than the Spirit of TRUTH who takes Scripture and reveals it. I don’t trust translators explicitly as you do. And I don’t ignore the fact that Scripture is dead letter without the Holy Spirit revealing its truth. The Holy Spirit reveals to me the Bible came from God, you however seem to be saying over and over it came from the KJ translators.
Hope you can reply. Sincerely
Thanks for writing Roger,
Good of you to respond and contribute to the discussion. You wrote,
>>Your missive was very informative. You ovbiously do not know there are many different, uh, flavors of KJV only people. When you take one group and paint the rest with the same color you sound like our president. He does have problems with credibility, doesn't he?<<
Yes, there are different flavors of KJ user. Yet the KJV itself doesn’t turn people into the radical mob. It’s when people follow a source of information that they become antagonistic towards users of other versions. But most users of the KJ are courteous, honest Christians [I hope]. You wrote,
>>There are so many examples of error in your letter but I will take only one to illustrate. Your condemnation of "Easter" is unfortunate. The extreme bible correctors have used this and sucked good people into their error many times. I am not going to even give the reasons to you that this is the best translation. If you are honest you can look up both sides and then maybe you will understand. I doubt it though.<<
The arguments to include “Easter” have been aired many times. I mentioned Easter because the radicals have a clear problem. In the end, they must claim the text was correctly altered to include the word. Yet Easter wasn’t used or known by Luke it’s foreign to Acts and all the MSS. The KJ translators introduced “Esotre” from the ancient Anglo-Saxon service-books. Were they right and Luke was wrong? That’s the choice you must make. I would rather know what Luke wrote, while you would rather follow the 1611 translators, and that’s the bottom line. You wrote,
>>You sound like your mind is made up and you do not wish to be destracted by the truth.<<
When you suggested I “do not need to respond to this” your mind appeared closed. Most of the cults also ignore truth and the facts. I’m happy to read and study all the evidence you offer. Yet from the many emails I posted [this time] few responded, perhaps suggesting their minds are made up. You write,
>>I believe that the KJV is taken from the preserved Greek text and not the corrupted Vaticanus or Siniaticus<<
I’m not oblivious to the fact the KJ radicals fabricate their own history regarding texts and MSS. They believe in a conspiracy theory against the KJV before and after 1611. And the stories they tell are long, short and half true. Very few are able to check their claims. They think the Byzantine text-type of the Eastern church underpinning the 1611 is eminently pure. Everything else is labelled “rubbish, perverse and corrupt”, although these MSS are not corrupt in the sense you and I use the words.
As you know the KJV is based on the Byzantine text-type. But has anyone told you that of all the MSS in this tradition, no two agree perfectly? So to claim special inspiration is ridiculous. Most MSS are relatively late and cannot be found in the earliest Greek MSS, nor the earliest Bible versions, or the quotations of the early church writers. Those readings found in the ante-Nicene fathers are also Western or Alexandrian readings and prove they are equal (not better) to other texts. A primary feature of this text-type is the tendency to conflate readings. Signs of secondary influence are the 38 major harmonisations, yet the Alexandrian text-type has only one. It’s correctly said its the text of the Great Reformation, but also correct that they had no other option available to them.
Most modern translations are based on the Alexandrian text-type. The radicals incorrectly claim this text-type “attacks the deity of Christ”, the “virgin birth” and salvation by grace. This is completely untrue. For example, the NIV ascribes deity to Jesus where the KJV does not – Jn.1:18 Titus 1:13 2 Pet.1:1 (Christ’s deity is affirmed in modern translations with the understandable exception of the NWT). The word “deity” is not even found in the KJV. The Vaticanus and Sinaiticus are not the only exemplars of this text. It’s found in quotations by ante-Nicene fathers and traced back to the 2nd century and early versions, so it has excellent credentials. The best Western and Alexandrian texts have been discoveries of the last two centuries. You wrote,
>>Is it really hard for you to believe that God could preserve His Word as he said?<<
I rejoice that God has marvellously preserved His Word. The words of the prophets and apostles have been recorded and preserved for generations. No other ancient book is attended by such a vast number of MSS. There's thousands and they prove God has preserved Scripture. The Holy Spirit has excised control to produce inspiration, accuracy in every statement and divine wisdom in the words penned. Yet a translation can only bear witness to the meaning of the original, not to its exact words.
But God did not promise to preserve the original autographs. And why would the phrase “God could preserve His Word” exclude other translations? No doubt you will quote Psa.12:6-7. However, this Psalm is not referring to the work of scribes, nor God promising to preserve His word on MSS forever. God didn't preserve the original autographs and this is evident in that we don't have them. No one can produce those ‘very words’ in any manuscript. So nothing in this Psalm necessitates that a future English translation is referred to while other translations are not! If I apply Psa.12 to the KJV, then why don’t we have the original 1611 KJV? A correct meaning Psa. 12:6-7 is discovered in a modern translation and when read in context. You wrote,
>>Maybe you need to check out your salvation, or at least your attitude.<<
Lets talk about “attitude” first. I have read some of the literature the KJ radicals publish. I would call it “hate literature”. Those who use other versions or question KJ dogma are described as – “lairs, fools, dung, stupid-jerks, dogs, blasphemers, brain-washed, up-starts, hypocrites, deceitful” etc. Some comments are slanderous. I also learn the radicals are also known for hate-mail campaigns and abusive phone-calls to those who hold contrary views. I would think this kind antagonism is the "attitude" that needs 'checking' Roger. You wrote,
>>Of course people can get saved using other translations. You are less than honest if you say we KJV people believe they cannot.<<
Now lets talk about salvation. It is the KJ radicals who QUESTION that “people can get saved using other translations”. Some radicals argue so strongly that all other versions are “works of the Devil - - Satanic imitations - - lies - - polluted counterfeit rubbish” and “full of mistakes” that they are untrustworthy. So they say one can’t be SURE about ANY doctrine unless the KJV is consulted. They say, “an unsaved person can only be saved and born again by the Word of God” which they insist is the KJV, not the NIV etc. One radical wrote,
“How do you know that you are saved? Please DON’T say ‘ - because the Bible says so’, or ‘the Scriptures say so’ or - the word of God says so - if you can't produce that Bible”.
True, I couldn't be SURE about salvation, because other versions are called 'Satanic and untrustworthy'. He is saying no one can be sure regarding salvation unless one produces the KJV. Another radical wrote, “God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more then one language”. The language they insist God has chosen is English. Anyone thinking about this realises the serious implications. Salvation is intrinsically linked to a language and a Bible version. Thankfully you and I agree. I believe Scripture does not teach that salvation rests on languages or translations, but on Christ's atoning work and His death and resurrection (Jn.3:16-17 Rom.10:9). Even the KJV itself will not support the claims of the radicals.
This is why I said "there will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV and never spoke English. They simply accepted the Gospel message". If they never read the 1611 or KJV, it questions your doctrine. You wrote,
>>Other translations contain God's Word, The KJV is God's Word.<<
The problem I have with this is two fold.
 Do they contain parts of God’s Word? Who determines what parts are God’s Word and which are not? Your standard by which they are measured is the KJV. What if the KJV is wrong anywhere? You answer; ‘no never wrong anywhere on anything.’ The radicals claim,
“How can the true Word of God contain even one error?”
“If the KJB is the true Word of God, then it cannot contain any error...”
“Because Prov.30:5 states “EVERY word of God is PURE - An inaccurate word is not a pure word”.
[This last chap mentions Prs 30:5 and ignores vs 6 - “Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”. The KJ translators added words to make the KJV conform to English. These words were printed in roman type to indicate there was no exact equivalent in the original. In today’s KJV (& the NASB) the "supplied” words are printed in italics]. So could you provide examples of God’s Word [or words] in other versions?
 The changes in today’s KJV, from the 1611 have been estimated at 75,000. Whether 45,000, 75,000 or 1,000 why argue all others have corrections and changes and avoid these words concerning the KJV? Today’s KJV is not the “word- for - word - unaltered 1611”. The orthographical errors alone verify a huge numbers of alterations.
In 1612 the KJV under went the first reprint for corrections. In 1613 another edition, corrected some errors but introduced others, containing over 300 differences from the 1611. Criticisms resulted in a further revision in 1629. In 1638 an attempt was made to produce an "authentique corrected Bible". This was undertaken by a committee including two of the original translators. These two ‘original translators’ recognised errors in the 1611 requiring attention. In 1653 there was another call for revision because of errors in printing, translation, and language but nothing came of the proposal. In 1675 a spelling revision was made. In 1762 another corrected edition. And yet another in 1769. KJ radicals are forced to admit this is the KJV used today and but which KJV has less errors, the 1611 or 1769?
So insisting the 1611 KJV did not “contain any error” is nonsense. There has been a long history of changes and errors. In 1631 errors resulted in the KJV been called the “Wicked Bible” and in 1795 been called the “Murderer’s Bible”. So the same criticisms you make about other versions are true of the KJV. You condemn the errors in other versions, as corruptions and evil while the errors in the KJV are brushed aside as trivial. You write,
>>See the difference. If I am wrong (and I am not) then I am guilty of trusting God too much.<<
You are not “trusting God too much” but trusting the KJ translators “too much”. Faith in the KJV is not identical to faith in God. Trusting God is different than trusting a language translation. If you entrust yourself to Luther’s German Bible of 1522 and insisted that alone is God’s Word, then that would be equally absurd. By placing such faith in Luther’s translation you effectively remove the focal point of faith in God’s Word, to faith in a translation. You wrote,
>>You do not need to respond to this (but you probably will). You must have too much time on your hands. Find a church and get busy.<<
Perhaps these matters don’t concern for you, as me. “See the difference” I am willing to “look up both sides” and desire to “understand”. The church I found has thrown off the KJ error and embraced the truth and common sense.
Look forward to hearing from you.
Thanks for your email Bro Kofler
I'm open to comments and happy to answer your reply. You wrote,
>>I just read your article. Obviously, I can not unanswer all the dribble that is emailed my way in full detail. (God knows I get enough of it,) Let me just make my stand, whether you approve of it or not.<<
"Dribble" is a word that comes to mind when reading the KGB website. However, I don't usually refer to emails that come to me as "dribble". In your "stand" you make a number of points. I would like to 'answer' these. You wrote,
>>1. I believe that God preserved His Word in the english by the KJV. Ps12:6,7<<
The meaning of vs.6 is that God's promises can be trusted. It's not referring to manuscripts (MSS) or translations. Or do you put MSS in the furnace to try them? "Word" [vs6] equates with "promises", [not KJV] while vs7 refers to the Israelites not a Bible translation. The NIV reads, "0 LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever" this clarifies where the KJV is confusing.
You apply vs.6 to the KJV. Then why can't this also apply to all versions? They all have God's promises preserved in them. There's nothing in this Psalm that refers to the KJV and excludes other versions. It's not describing the work of scribes, nor God promising to preserve "every individual words" on MSS forever. God didn't preserve the original autographs and this is evident in that we don't have them. No one can produce those 'very words' in any MS. So nothing in this Psalm necessitates that a future English translation is referred to while other translations are not. (We don't even have the original 1611 KJV). You wrote,
>>2. I have heard folks give a genuine testimony of Salvation through Chdrist just by watching a crusade on the television. I have no idea what version it was, but they are saved.<<
It concerns me the radicals add to the gospel something that is unscriptural. The radicals 'crusade' consists of - Repent, Believe and be baptised AND [wait for it] learn English if you want to know what God really says.
It's your radical friends who QUESTION people can get "saved" using other translations. They argue strongly all other versions are "works of the Devil - Satanic imitations - lies - polluted counterfeit rubbish" and "full of mistakes" therefore untrustworthy. So THEY say one can't be SURE about ANY doctrine unless the KJV is consulted. They say, "an unsaved person can only be saved and born again by the Word of God" which they insist is the KJV, not the NIV etc. One radical wrote,
"How do you know that you are saved? Please DON'T say ' - because the Bible says so', or 'the Scriptures say so' or - the word of God says so - if you can't produce that Bible".
True, I couldn't be SURE about salvation, because other versions are called 'Satanic and untrustworthy'. He is saying no one can be sure regarding salvation unless one produces the KJV. Another radical wrote, "God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more then one language". The language they insist God has chosen is English. Anyone thinking about this realises the serious implications. Salvation is intrinsically linked to a language and a Bible version. Maybe you and I agree. I believe Scripture does NOT teach that salvation rests on languages or translations, but on Christ's atoning work and His death and resurrection (Jn.3:16-17 Rom.10:9).
This is why I wrote, "there will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV and never spoke English. They simply accepted the Gospel message". If this is true, they never read the 1611 or KJV, it questions your doctrine and suggests it is only a doctrine of men. Sound doctrine also then does not rest on knowing English or the KJV. You wrote,
>>3. Why don't you spend a couple of dollars and get some good books written by good people about the KJV. Dr. Gail Ripplinger, etc.<<
What has this to do with your "stand"? If you want to post "some good books" I'm happy to read them. I have that book. You wrote,
>>3. Let me suggest that instead of emailing everyone that you ought to be out going door to door trying to keep somebody out of hell. How many have you led to Christ this month or this year? Is there a hell!<<
Your "stand" has more with what you think others should do than your belief. If you went "door to door", you might meet people who can't speak English. You have NOTHING to offer them that they can read. You could only offer them "One Book" which they CANNOT read. How could you led them to Christ?
As for me, I decided to email you about your doctrine. A doctrine that would send millions to hell denying them the Word of Life. And those who can't read English [as you], you would deny them the clarity and accurateness of modern versions which they need. They also could be in danger of hell while your radical group withholds the Word of Life. Don't say, 'oh, we don't believe that' because it's written all through the literature published by KJ radicals -
"anyone who uses any OTHER bible has a corrupt bible"
Translators described as -
"arrogant bible correctors who are doing the work of Satan" [and]
"the most dangerous enemy of the word of God".
"the most vicious and malicious attempted assassination of the word of God ever seen on plant earth".
These comments suggest God has not given His Word to ALL His people of EVERY nation and EVERY generation. Christ commanded 'take the Gospel to the ends of the earth', "Go ye therefore, and teach ALL NATIONS". Since English is not known to all God's people the Scriptures MUST be translated. Translating Scripture and communicating the Gospel is the Great Commission.
The Roman Catholic Church once taught that translating from the Latin into the common tongue of the people was corrupting Scripture. So the Papists wickedly withheld Scripture from God's people and translators were martyred as heretics [Jn.16.2]. Rome once taught what you teach today.
>>4. Hence, by the jest of your letter I realize you are not trying to sincerely find the truth, so, let me suggest that you get your own web page going on your own heresy instead of trying to combat with every preacher you contradict with via email.<<
Another part of you "stand" that has more to do with what you think others should do, than what you believe. I'm not the one operating the KGB website and making bold claims. If you people can't answer the challenge, why make the claims? Here you are, a big-man in the KJ church yet silent on it's defense. But talk about 'the truth' - I'm waiting for you 'preachers of the truth' to preach truth. Convince me of 'the truth' if you think you have it. Truth needs fear no foe.
With love and a pinch of salt