Want Some Answers ???

King James Error

Hi Steve

Thanks for your letter, appreciate your comments. You wrote,

>>“I see no profit except you be convinced of the same as I do regarding the KJV”<<

But you saw profit in writing to me. We can discontinue correspondence [at your request], but I still believe correspondence involving Bible study is better. In Scripture we meet God Himself and are called by Him to reshape our values, attitudes and relationships with others. In Scripture we come to know the will of God as the Bible conveys God’s good Word to us. A Word of transformation and there can be nothing more important for us than to hear God’s word clearly and accurately and respond willingly to His voice. Only when we understand the Word can the Word change our lives. The truth is important and if we care to share the truth, then that’s to God’s glory. You write,

>>Over the last eight years I have lived by faith, faith that what the word of God says I can trust. And I mean the 1611 AV as the bible I read says, "the just shall live by faith". And when I question myself and ask what do I mean by faith, it can only be faith in God's word. Not faith in something that has mistakes, because how can we be sure that we have eternal life<<

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]. I have faith in God’s Word, but translation 'mistakes' don’t rob me from 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.

So if there’s '
mistakes' in the Bible “how can we be sure that we have eternal life? Firstly, “eternal life” is not dependent on the KJV itself, rather, its dependent on what Christ has done for us. Nor is learning old English vital to repentance and faith. If the non-English speaker must learn old English “to be sure” they have 'eternal life', then that is NOT the GOSPEL once delivered to the saints! That gospel was not proclaimed by the Early Church Fathers, the Reformers, or even in 1611. No, that gospel has been formulated of late. Secondly, Scripture is capable of giving up its proper meaning for every generation. The Bible is intended for men of every age, social standing, type of education and so must be in an understandable language. But old versions are not always capable of a straightforward meaning. Would God offer man a revelation incapable of being understood? Such could result in people who are unsure whether they have 'eternal life'. You write -

>>We don’t have any originals MSS, and no one living today has seen even one of them. To believe in a bible that has mistakes is to believe that whoever produced that bible was a just and honourable person, and we have to place our trust in him or them, and not the Lord God. You said to me that them were many mistakes in the KJV. How is it that no one has corrected them if they know there are mistakes?<<

You obviously haven’t been told the whole story. Radicals claim the KJV was the “word for word…unaltered…inerrant [without 'mistakes']…unchanged 1611”. But they will admit the KJV has had “24,000” changes. They claim they resulted from “typographical errors… spelling mistakes,” “printing errors”. And ensured me that these “errors” were “corrected” [their words]. But also write,

>>If you change ANYTHING you are a Bible Corrector<<
>>How can the Word of God contain even ONE error?<<

It’s amazing if you can’t see the contradiction here. You asked me, I ask you, “how can an honest person believe the 1611 is inerrant when confronted by 24,000 mistakes? And, do you think that 24,000 mistakes means that God now “couldn't keep his promises” ? You write -

>>I am not a great academic like you, I don't know Hebrew or Greek, and I believe God has catered for people like me in the KJV that I hold in my hand today. I don't have to trust in men to confirm which is the true word of God and which is not. If there is no bible without a mistake, then we cannot know for certain that the message we get from the Bibles we have are true. We can only hope that they are the truth, I don't want Christianity like that<<.

The fact that God has given you an English Bible and has not required you to learn another language indicates something of what I’m trying to say. And even a non-academic can see that “God has catered for”millions of non-English speakers and those who can’t read old English. And God “confirms” that they have received His Word by giving them the Holy Spirit [Ac.2:38, 5:32 Gal.3:3,5]. If I only spoke Chinese I could know God, walk in truth, yet having never read the KJV. Why? Because salvation has nothing to do with learning English, and there’s no uncertain doctrine or promise in our translations resulting from so-called “mistakes”. You see, ‘God has it correctand we don’t need to trust men when reading translations. You “don’t want a Christianity like that” well, I wouldn’t want a Christianity that excludes people on the grounds of language and robs what rightfully belongs to the whole church. You write -

>>..I could not argue the point with you because my biblical training didn't go further than the bible I hold in my hand. I can only show you why I believe the KJV is the word of God. I have asked myself the question many times, how would God reveal to me the whole truth. It couldn't be tradition that is passed on by man, the very bible tells us not to trust in man. God didn't speak audibly to each of us, although he could have done it that way, I believe he choose to commit it to writing, and the Lord Jesus quotes many times, "It is written". And common sense tells me that he didn't leave it up to men to reproduce copies<<

You suggest, “not to trust in man” but it’s alright to trust the KJ translators because they “…were inspired but didn't know it”. They were also imperfect men of “academic” training who made thousands of interpretive decisions and ‘confirm’ which words would be added and deleted, yet you trust them. They owed a tremendous debt to the dedication and scholarship of those who preceded them, [the academics and researchers]. You “believe by faith that inspiration is ongoing.” So what’s stopping all translations from the same inspiration? You say God “didn't leave it up to men to reproduce copies.” Yet, the ‘honourable’ KJV translators reproduced a copy [of Bishop’s Bible] and passed on their tradition. Jesus said take the Gospel to every nation. So making “copies” and communicating the Gospel is part of the Great Commission. God intended His Word to be available to ‘whosoever’ in their language. Provide a verse indicating God doesn’t want His word translated for all nations [See Ac.10:34-35]

How much in the KJV is without error? If you say “all”, then which “KJB” do you refer to? You might know about the KJV “Wicked Bible” of 1631 [A textual error which gave it the name]. And the KJV “Murderer’s Bible” of 1795 [another textual error]. But there are many KJV’s. The first KJV off the press came with marginal column notes. The translators said they added these for “wordes and sentences” that seemed to present “difficultie and doultfulesse” to the reader. They argued the text needed further explanation so they provided the explanation in a footnote. Bible students need a Bible that offers a few notes and study aids. As successive editions of the KJV came off the press, the editors and printers would add more ‘helps’ to the margin: cross-references, alternate readings, variant spellings, and interpretative comment. In 1701 a chronology was added and a date for major Biblical events. All without mistakes ?

How about, The KJV Criswell Study Bible? Has a detailed introduction and outline for each book and subheadings, cross-references for nearly every verse, charts, a glossary, subject index and footnotes. Or Dake’s KJV Annotated Reference Bible? Its lengthy margin notes give a veritable commentary on the text. The editor inserts an outline into the text through the use of frequent subheadings, and numerous cross-references. Many of the notes are fanciful regarding prophecy. Or how about, Nave’s KJV Study Bible? It has alternate readings from the RV, footnotes, cross-references in the margin and Ussher’s chronology [but question marks after many dates]. Also the KJV Open Bible. This updates some of the versions more archaic words. Some KJ editions put portions of Scripture in small italic footnotes because the authenticity of the passages is in doubt [ie Ac.8.37 1.Pe.5.2]. The Footnotes in these KJV provide textual notes and recommended ‘probable’ texts with alternative readings regarding deletions [Mt.24.36], substitutions [Mk.1.41], additions [Mt.21.43], etc.

Note also the many Topical KJV’s. Topical Bibles place Scripture in alphabetical order. Space limitations don’t permit the quotation of Scripture verses in full so the editor edits some readings. Some of these KJV’s are misleading when editors glean some far-fetched collection of Scripture verses for a topic. Or an editor claims an authoritative message from God on matters that the Bible is silent, he can distort our understanding of Scripture. Nave’s Topical KJV has the occasional alternate reading from the RV. While the Zondervan KJV Topical Bible includes ASV, RSV and RV alternate readings.

So when you say KJB, which one? And which do I believe when one differs from another? I have a plain simple Cambridge KJV and regarding Acts 12.4 the margin tells me “Easter” should be “Passover”. What happens when my KJB tells me that your understanding of your KJB is wrong? You write –

>>“l also believe that any translation taken from the KJV to another language is inspired, 2 Tim 3:16 says was All Scripture is given (present tense) it does not say given.<<

But the radicals insist, “Anyone who uses any OTHER bible has a corrupt bible”. Translators use ancient versions, even modern translations in English and other languages. But never rely on one version. The KJV is not used as the primary text for translation work. English and foreign words don't always have an equivalence respectively so translators must use a variety of sources. Foreign language translations are justified to the Greek, Hebrew or Critical Text. Many old English words have changed their meaning and the KJV gives archaic English names to objects known by other names today. Yet even if the KJV was translated into another language, its contrary to your belief. That - to translate the KJV is “ tampering with God's Word" and “corrupting the text". Who would check these so-called 'translations' to ensure no errors? And why would it remain wrong to translate the KJV into Modern English?

You mention 2 Tim.3.16. ‘All Scripture is given by inspiration of God’. Paul is saying every writing Divinely inspired is profitable for doctrine. He's speaking of the OT., which came by Divine inspiration. He calls the Holy Scriptures, [2 Tim.3:15]. It is the OT alone that this passage refers; and although the NT came by inspiration also, it was not collected at that time, so Paul could not have referred to it. But to read this verse from a version and then apply it to that version is clearly not the meaning of the verse at all. You write,

>>I am told in Matt 4:4 Lk 4.4 and Duet 8.3 Man shall not live by bread alone but by every word that proccedeth out of the mouth of God. To me that is a commandment<<

When Jesus said "every Word' which “proceeded out of the mouth of God” He was not referring to the KJV or giving “a commandment” regarding any version. He was indicating that Satan desires we distrust God in a way not authorised by God’s Word, just as he desired that Christ depart from the word of God and follow self. I too have no reason to expect that God will support me in a different manner from what he has promised in His Word. This has nothing to do with translations, but the purpose God has made known, with regard to preserving the lives of his creatures. You write -

>>and if God has not preserved every word what does that say about God, how can I obey if we have not every word”.<<

Having "every word" in the literal sense is having the original MSS. God did not promise to preserve the original autographs, which are “every word." But why would the phrase “every word” exclude other translations ? Before the printing press many Christians didn’t have a complete Bible, but they could "obey God". Their lack of Scripture didn't “say” anything bad “about God.” Today in China there are still too many only having Scripture portions. Why are they ready to believe, suffer, and die for the little they have yet the cult followers of the KJV can't “obey if (they) have not every word”? I believe God has preserved Scripture, but that doesn’t promote a translation over another. Nor does it mean every time the Bible says, “Thy Word” it refers to the KJV. You write,

>>“You quoted to me that Easter is the wrong word in Acts 12.4 I do not believe it is wrong for this reason, v3 states that it was the days of unleavened bread, the Passover had finished, gone. In Lev.23:5,6 v5 says In the fourteenth day of the first month at even is the Lord’s Passover. The fifteenth day is the start of the seven days of unleavened bread , it could not be the Passover, it stated in v3 "then were the days of unleavened bread, the Passover had finished and gone. Why was it called Easter, it was a pagan feast, and Herod was a pagan. The context of the v's 1 to 4 is Herod and what he did and what he was going to do. To call it the Passover would have been an untruth, Jn 17:17 says thy word is truth. How do you know Mark that the Greek manuscript the KJV translators used was not wrong at that word. We presume according to the Greek manuscript that it should be Passover, but we don't have the originals to check if this is so<<

Even if I agree, the fact remains that Luke did not write “Easter”. That’s an Anglo-Saxon word, which KJ translators inserted. So this proves the KJV is not more accurate and reliable than the manuscript evidence. Who determines what words go into the text? Can translators add as they please? [Eg. Moffatt added “Bagpipe” Dan.3.10,15]. Personally I prefer to know and study the thoughts and words of the original authors, what they wrote. You prefer to trust the KJ translators thinking they know better. But checking “the originals” is pointless, according KJ radicals they think they are to be corrected to the KJV. You write –

>>“To be honest we don't know for certain that the NT was in Greek, as we have in the copies of the manuscripts extant. We are really only left to believe God has preserved his words, or we trust fallible men like yourself to take away our belief in God and his word<<

No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of MS witness, as the NT. There’s abundant evidence the NT was written in Greek. The 1611 translators knew this. Do you trust them? But they wrongly believed it was Classical Greek, and we now know it was ‘Common Greek’ of everyday life. From the very beginning God intended His Word to be clearly understood by the common man. The Roman Catholic Church once taught that translating 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]. And today you people believe the same. I have no desire to take “away your belief in God” but rather have you question your indoctrination by your particular denomination. You write –

>>When I compare my bible with others I see in them mistakes or parts or verses missing, is my bible wrong or are the others wrong. My faith takes me to God and my conscience bears witness to the truth. I see provable mistakes in other versions, and if a simpleton like myself can see them, why can't academic men see them and correct them, but they don't<<

You are comparing versions and the standard by which the KJV is selected is the assumption the KJV is right and all others wrong. This hinders you evaluating evidence. You interpret verses by comparing versions and arriving at a final once and for all analyses from the KJV. Then, to question your analyses is wrong because the KJV is absolute – never wrong. And to admit any verse is wrong in the KJV means you have lost the whole argument. To question your argument is to question God [which cannot be right]. So you think your argument is perfect even as God is perfect. But for me Scripture has freshness and the meaning is grasped through a continuing process of interpretation. You write,

>>“Look at Mark 1:2 in your NIV, That verse is a lie which can be proven by your own NIV. That is a quote of Mal 3:1 Not Isa, your verse 3 is a quote from Isa. Why have not the translators corrected it? and this is a provable mistake. Its obvious that the manuscript was corrupt, just as Passover could not be the word in Acts 12:4<<

Its not a “lie” or “proven mistake”. This prophecy is found both in Malachi and Isaiah. But the quotation is not entirely taken from Isa.40:3 but partly from Mal.3:1. For this reason it was likely changed to taiv profhtaiv, ‘the prophets’, so it could refer to both. However, the quotation from Malachi does not occur in the parallels [ie Mt.3:3] where the Prophet Isaiah is mentioned, this also establishes the authority of the NIV reading. The NIV reading is more accurate and supported by the Codex, Bezae, Vatican and several other MSS of great repute. It is found also in the Syriac, Persic, Coptic, Armenian, Gothic, Vulgate, and Itala versions, and in several of the fathers. Where’s your evidence to the contrary? You write

>>Another provable mistake is in Daniel, that is if John 1:1 is correct. In your letter to Jack you speak about the NWT the JW bible, how they remove the deity of the Lord Jesus Christ, as they do in John 1:1 and make the Word (Jesus) to be another God beside Jehovah God, in other words two god's. But from the NIV the JW could prove that Jesus is another god. Look at Dan 3:25 it says and the fourth looks like a son of the gods<<.

The JW can't "
prove" a thing from the NIV if he also reads Jn.1:1. Dan 3:25 isn’t "another proven mistake". The KJV “Is like the Son of God” is a bad translation. What notion could this idolatrous king have of the Christ? Nebuchadnezzar could not have used the expression in the definite Christian sense suggested by the King James Version of the bible. The Chaldeans believed in families of gods. If you check, the text reads yhla rb "bar elahin" which signifies a son of the gods, that is, a Divine person or angel; and so the King calls him in vs.28 “God hath sent his, ANGEL and delivered his servant”. It was not the “Angel of the covenant” for Nebuchadnezzar knew just as much of the one as he did of the other. The NT also makes no identification of Dan.3:25 as Christ either. You write –

>>How can an honest person believe that bible when confronted with mistakes, the NIV board have never corrected these mistakes in the other editions they have printed since the first came off the press. Also Mark when I see verses missing in the NIV. and other Bibles but they still retain the same number of verses as the KJV. I see devilry at work. If the NIV is superior and the translators believe they have it right in leaving out verses why don't they stand by their conviction and reduce or change the verse numbers. Maybe I Tim 6:10 is the reason<<

The “
NIV board have corrected” the ‘mistakes’ in the KJV. The fact that parts of verses are missing [or added] does not prove “devilry at work” for the Conspiracy Theorist. The 1611 had parts 'missing', words added compared to Bibles before it. And it’s had many corrections over the years. I have pages photocopied from the 1627 KJV. I count 139 changes compared with today’s KJV. The numbering of verses occurred before 1611. The MSS don’t have numbered verses they were inserted by translators. All translators follow the standard numbering procedure it has nothing to do with the KJV. 1 Tim.6:lO describes those moved by "the Love for money". Translators made money from NIV sales? They were biblical scholars from colleges, universities and seminaries and Baptist, Pres., Breth., evangl., Wesl, Church of Christ, Naza, Lutheran, Methodist, etc You imply they were all dishonest? Do you suggest they are lovers of money? You wrote,

>>In my computer I have the concordance and when looking up words it tells me how many times a particular word occurs. This is another instance that convinces me the KJV is the work of God and not of man. The word Christ in my bible appears 555 times. The word Satan who we know is a counterfeiter in my bible appears 55 times. God appears 4444 times. Babylon occurs 286 times which is 13x22 Sin occurs 447 times and the only thing that covers sin is blood, and blood occurs the exact number of times 447 to cover sin. Because the other Bibles remove that word blood many times sin is not covered. One of Jesus names is the Word and my bible quotes it 7 times, the perfect number. The other Bibles remove it in John 5:7 I don't believe in coincidences as I find these numbers appearing in the way they do, and these are only a few instances. This is one of the reasons I believe the king James Authorised Version is the true word of God<<

How many times certain words appear in versions won’t prove they are closer to the originals. If I provide a long list of words indicating no numeric “
coincidence” when “appearing” would that prove the opposite? Why not? It's the same argument you are using. Someone who studied ‘biblical numeric’ claimed they were only found “beneath the surface of the Greek and Hebrew text of the Bible. He claimed no other literature contained the same. It’s a strange idea that if the Bible uses the word “sin” it must use the word “blood” to cover it. The word ‘Blood’ occurs at times as a reference to innocent people murdered [1 Kg.2.31]. If “these are only a few instances” please send more. You write -

>>I don't believe it can be proven that the King James Version is the word of God, We believe by faith, as the prophets did in Heb.11. If it could be proven that there are mistakes then we would know that God couldn't keep his promises. And when I say proven, I mean proven in a court of law. Which no one has yet been able to do…..Because we cannot prove the KJV is the word of God, we cannot force others to believe, but we should endeavour to show why we believe it is. Whereas the other Bibles do have mistakes which can be proven by the same bible<<

This is extraordinary. No sooner you write this, than the next section you write, “
I am in no doubt that God has preserved the words…. I believe they are found only in the KJV”. You seem to think “faith” in the KJV [a translation] is the same as faith in God. Trusting God and trusting a translation are different. Real faith is to trust God whatever the situation, not trust translations. You only require one word missing from a verse and you can’t “obey” and won’t “believe” God. In contrast, my faith in God does not stand or fall by whether the KJV is a good or bad version. What has ‘mistakes’ in translations got to do with God been able to ‘keep his promises'?

Millions have a Bible in their tongue from translations with no KJV input. Do they have a weak faith because they can’t speak or read the old KJV? Do they find it impossible to obey God and doubt they are Christians? No! God’s Word to Paul was never intended to be static, bound in time. He goes to Syria, Cilicia Cappadocia, Galatia, Asia, Thrace, Macedonia etc. They don’t all speak the same tongue. He could speak many languages [1Cor.14.18] and he declared the whole counsel of God [Ac.20.27]. Yet he rejects ideas that God had a hidden plan yet to be revealed [Col.2.2-8]. A plan that after 1611 God would hide Scripture in one language. Think about this. Why would God hide from Paul, wait till after the Apostles, never foretell, forewarn, send no prophet to His Church and then in 1611 change His plan? Not only so, why send missionaries to lost souls in foreign countries [suffering martyrdom] but after 1611 deny His Word to lost souls?

>>Mark, your faith whether you believe it or not, is founded on men of the past and your own academic learning<<

Where did my
faith come from? Here, “faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ.” [Rom.10.17 Gal.3.2,5] I had faith in my Savour long before 'academic learning'. Without study, I’m accused of knowing nothing, having studied I’m accused of stating “what others have said”. Having studied these matters I suggest you check everything your told, ask questions, study and pray and God will reveal the truth. My objections to this group are based on the simple Gospel message and the teaching of Scripture. It is contrary to the truth in Christ. I won’t take up too much of your time but I would love to help you further. If there’s any matter not covered or any needing discussion feel free to write. I trust this finds you in the best of health and ensure you of my on going interest in any correspondence. The Lord bless your studies in His word.

Yours sincerely,
Mark Purchase