KJV Uber Alles!!

I have a lot of friends who believe that the KJV is the only version fit for human consumption, and that all others are corrupt; That God was true to His word and preserved every last jot and tittle of His Word and saw to it that only the KJV would contain those every subtle pen strokes.

Personal opinion: that’s sad.

Actually.. lemme correct that. That’s bad.

Why would a person want to embrace one man’s translation (the KJV) and preach it as the only infallible Word of God when God never rubber-stamped the 1611 KJV? Honestly? I’ve never understood that. That’s just a modern day version of “teaching as doctrines the traditions of men” ..or perhaps I should say “But in vaine they do worship me, teaching for doctrines, the commandements of men“.  (Matthew 15:9, KJV 1611)

I’m sure we’ve all heard the mantra “If the KJV was good enough for Paul and Jesus, then by golly, it’s good enough for me!” But seriously, answer the question: where did God ever say that the KJV (1611 or otherwise) was the infallible Word of God? God never said that – man did! I still haven’t gotten a straight answer to that question from my KJV-only friends. Maybe someday they’ll answer how/why God hid His word from the world until King James came along, and then allowed only a select few to be able to get His pure Word – but only if they happened to speak the goode king’s English. Maybe they have an interesting interpretation of Isaiah 6:9-10. I dunno. But I digress.

For all the manuscript debating we can do, all we’ll do is rehash the same old arguments and rebuttals. One man’s manuscript evidence is another man’s forgery; one man’s sacred scripture is another man’s deviation from the original. It never ends. So I’ll not debate those (very relevant) issues at this time.

Moving On

There is another line of thinking that’s a bit more interesting: the KJVthumper bashers (peole who like to bash the people who swear on the KJV 1611) will tell you that the 1611 KJV didn’t use the English of the day. Well, my tape recorder was broken when I visited the goode king in his palace back then, so I suppose it doesn’t come as any surprise that I don’t have any hard evidence on my shelves to convince you.  However, the discussion needn’t stop there: Using this lovely medium we call the “Internet”, we can quickly ascertain whether the “KJV English” language was common for books and Bibles of the day. If it was, then who cares if it was written in a given style for one translation: the style was either common or not common, period, and that’s a more relevant question (to my mind, at any rate).

How do we check whether the “KJV English” was popular in that day? Simple! We’ll use any number of websites and READ FOR OURSELVES from the versions of Bibles that were available before and after the goode ole KJV 1611 was written. Namely, use www.studylight.org. (there are lots of other websites that do the same thing)

So.. Here’s Luke 3:36 in a variety of translations from around the time that King James authorized his 1611 Bible (King James & Co weren’t the only ones putting out Bible translations back then, y’know):

Tyndale New Testament (1526)
which was the sonne of Cainan: which was the sonne of Arphaxat: which was the sonne of Sem: which was the sonne of Noe: which was the sonne of Lameth:

The Bishop’s Bible (1568)
whiche was the sonne of Arphaxad, whiche was the sonne of Sem, whiche was the sonne of Noe, whiche was the sonne of Lamech:

The Geneva Bible (1587)
The sonne of Cainan, the sonne of Arphaxad, the sonne of Sem, the sonne of Noe, the sonne of Lamech,

The King James Version 1611 (Authorized)
Which was the sonne of Cainan, which was the sonne of Arphaxad, which was the sonne of Sem, which was the sonne of Noe, which was the sonne of Lamech,

Daniel Mace New Testament (1729)
son of Cainan, son of Arphaxad, son of Sem, son of Noe, son of Lamech, son of Mathusala,

Wesley’s New Testament (1755)
the son of Heber, the son of Sala, The son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, The son of Methuselah,

The King James Version 1769 (Authorized)This is the version most KJVers use, even though they think it’s the “1611”
Which was the son of Cainan, which was the son of Arphaxad, which was the son of Sem, which was the son of Noe, which was the son of Lamech,

Ok, so maybe they started and stopped their verses in slightly different places, but so what, they’re saying the same thing and by James, they all sound like the King James! So, there you have it! Proof in the pudding; end of discussion! All things considered, I don’t suppose the KJV reads too terribly different from the other Bibles that came out around the same time. Discussion settled. The language used in the KJV was not some tortured archaic uncommon language.

See – that was simple.


Did I just notice that ALL of these translations show that Luke MISQUOTED Gen 11:12 and 1 Chronicles???

And Shem liued, after he begate Arphaxad, fiue hundred yeeres, and begate sonnes and daughters. And Arphaxad liued fiue and thirtie yeeres, and begate Salah. (Genesis 11:11-12, KJV 1611)

Adam, Sheth, Enosh, Kenan, Mahalaleel, Iered, Henoch, Methushelah, Lamech, Noah, Shem, Ham, & Iapheth. (1 Chronicles 1:1-4, KJV 1611)

Where did Luke get his Cainan fellow?? Not only is he NOT in the Genesis 5 or Gen 11  or 1 Chronicles genealogies – HE’S NEVER MENTIONED IN THE KJV OT!!! And that’s comparing KJV to KJV!!

And all this time I thought that every jot and tittle of the Goode King James was perfectly preserved for all time!!??

What now??

(Take heart: There are several ways to deal with this, but the KJVers definition of ‘infallibility’ is not it)

  • Delicious
  • Facebook
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • RSS Feed

5 comments to KJV Uber Alles!!

  • Me

    The KJV is perfectly preserved. U r a herectic.

  • Bryan

    Response to ‘Me’ (not that they will ever see this): Personal attacks do nothing to enhance your case. Reasonable discussion of the facts would. If the blogger said something wrong, please explain how and why with some factual information to back it up. An unsupported statement combined with a personal attack makes me think you have no valid rebuttal and as such have resorted to name calling. And that is just sad for Brother to turn on Brother. 🙁

  • charles

    So you’re a “multi-version-onlyist?” Nothing is better than a man who is so prideful that he thinks he can correct God. Don’t like the trinity in 1 John 5:7? That’s ok, erase it. Don’t like the references to Hell in Mark 9:44, 46, or 48? That’s ok. Erase them. Don’t like it when somebody questions you? That’s ok; tell them what a “man-of-god” you are and then snowball them with references to Greek, Hebrew, or your Ph.D. in some obscure, but intelligent-sounding, Bible field of study. There is a name for somebody like this in the KJV; it’s called a “false prophet.” But that’s ok, as a multi-version onlyist, you can just erase that phrase too as it sounds so “negative.”

    My Lord and Savior is big enough to preserve His words forever (just like He tells us in the New Testament). Is yours? No? If your God isn’t big enough to preserve his words forever, it sounds like you are worshipping a man-made J.W. jesus…

    Don’t like this post? That’s ok. Erase it. That’s what multi-version-onlyists do as they follow the lead of Jehudi and trash the admonishing words of a Bible-Believer with a pen-knife…

    • Check this interesting aitiddon :)If you follow and translate this Genealogy you come up with an amazing hidden Message from God:- Adam means Man, To Be Red- Seth means Appointed, Substituted, Put- Enos means Mortal, Wicked, Blood Thirsty- Cainan means A Dwelling, Nest, Room, Sorrow- Mahalaleel means Praise of God, Praise God, The Blessed God- Jared means Descent, Come Down, Descend, Shall come down- Enoch means To Initiate, Discipline, Train Up, Teaching- Methuselah means Man of a Dart, to Extend, Stretch, His death shall bring- Lamech possibly means The despairing- Noah means Rest, Quiet, ComfortSo with these descriptions you could come up with this cool statement: Man is appointed mortal sorrow, but the Blessed God shall come down teaching, and His death shall bring the despairing comfort. But, just to be honest, I don’t know 100% if these name’s descriptions and translations are all Factual.

  • LC

    Charles – thanks for your input. Agreed: Man should never attempt to add to or remove from God’s Word.

    Regrettably, you’ve missed the point, so please re-read the 5th paragraph. The issues you raise are irrelevant to this discussion, so please focus and stay on topic. This blog only deals with the KJV you hold in your hand – nothing else. Particularly, it deals with the differences between the KJV’s OT and NT. We don’t need any fancy Greek or obscure PhDs to demonstrate it – we just need a Berean mindset and a 6th grade reading level.

    The question is not “can God keep His Word intact”. Of course He can.
    The question is “did He do so in the KJV and NOT in any other modern translation”, which is what the KJVOnly crowd says. Based on the KJV itself, the conclusion is not so logical.

    As you well know, the Septuagint (LXX) is rejected by most scholars, including the KJV translators, because it is seen as less reliable than the Masoretic Text (MT). The problem is that the NT authors used it more than they used the MT! So why is a “corrupt” manuscript good enough for the NT authors, but not for the KJV translators? There are approximately 300 OT quotes in the NT, the majority of them (about 200) are quotes from the LXX, not the MT! Simply put, the KJV cannot possibly be “perfectly preserved” or these differences would not exist.

    Here are just a few of these Septuagint quotes that I’ve noticed in my personal reading and studying of the Bible (in other words, I didn’t find out about these by reading some nutty website.)

    – Luke 3:36 -> Gen 11:12 (I’m unclear why you dismissed this discrepancy w/o even a comment. Cainan is nowhere to be found in the MT or the KJV OT, only in the LXX. Why did the KJV leave him out, when Luke put him in?)
    – Heb 1:6 -> Deut 32:43 (this phrase is in the LXX Deut 32:43 and in KJV Hebrews 1:6, but entirely omitted in the MT and the KJV Deut 32:43. Does it bother you that someone took away from God’s word in your KJV?)
    – Rom 10:18 -> Ps 19:4
    – John 12:40 -> Is 6:10
    – Matt 13:15 -> Is 6:10
    – Matt 3:3; Mark 1:3; John 1:23 -> Is 40:3
    (Google “septuagint quotes of the old testament” to find dozens more.)

    If you’re in search of a “perfectly preserved” translation, these discrepancies prove that the KJV is not perfectly preserved – unless you have a less-than-perfect definition of “perfect”.

    So we now have 2 good questions:

    Question 1: If the Septuagint is so unreliable, why did inspired NT authors quote from it? (Could it be that a bad translation is actually considered inspired and trustworthy by men of God!!?? If you answer ‘no’ to that question, bear in mind that the LXX is the “holy scriptures” that Timothy was trained on as a child. Please re-read 2 Tim 3:14-17)

    Question 2: Where did God Himself ever say that the KJV was the only inspired and accurate version and all others are incorrect?
    Answer 2: Nowhere! This is man’s tradition. It’s putting words in God’s mouth – adding to His Words.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>




Let\'s see if you\'re really a human: *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.