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“.  (, 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 . 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 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.

WAITASEC!!!

Did I just notice that ALL of these translations show that Luke MISQUOTED 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. (, KJV 1611)

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

Where did Luke get his Cainan fellow?? Not only is he NOT in the or   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)


in vain do they worship me,
teaching as doctrines the commandments of men.’”
(ESV)


And he said, “Go, and say to this people:

“‘Keep on hearing, but do not understand;
keep on seeing, but do not perceive.’
10 Make the heart of this people dull,
and their ears heavy,
and blind their eyes;
lest they see with their eyes,
and hear with their ears,
and understand with their hearts,
and turn and be healed.” (ESV)


36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, (ESV)


12 When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. (ESV)


11 And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

12 When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. (ESV)


1:1  Adam, Seth, Enosh; Kenan, Mahalalel, Jared; Enoch, Methuselah, Lamech; Noah, Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (ESV)


5:1 This is the book of the generations of Adam. When God created man, he made him in the likeness of God. Male and female he created them, and he blessed them and named them Man when they were created. When Adam had lived 130 years, he fathered a son in his own likeness, after his image, and named him Seth. The days of Adam after he fathered Seth were 800 years; and he had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days that Adam lived were 930 years, and he died.

When Seth had lived 105 years, he fathered Enosh. Seth lived after he fathered Enosh 807 years and had other sons and daughters. Thus all the days of Seth were 912 years, and he died.

When Enosh had lived 90 years, he fathered Kenan. 10 Enosh lived after he fathered Kenan 815 years and had other sons and daughters. 11 Thus all the days of Enosh were 905 years, and he died.

12 When Kenan had lived 70 years, he fathered Mahalalel. 13 Kenan lived after he fathered Mahalalel 840 years and had other sons and daughters. 14 Thus all the days of Kenan were 910 years, and he died.

15 When Mahalalel had lived 65 years, he fathered Jared. 16 Mahalalel lived after he fathered Jared 830 years and had other sons and daughters. 17 Thus all the days of Mahalalel were 895 years, and he died.

18 When Jared had lived 162 years he fathered Enoch. 19 Jared lived after he fathered Enoch 800 years and had other sons and daughters. 20 Thus all the days of Jared were 962 years, and he died.

21 When Enoch had lived 65 years, he fathered Methuselah. 22 Enoch walked with God after he fathered Methuselah 300 years and had other sons and daughters. 23 Thus all the days of Enoch were 365 years. 24 Enoch walked with God, and he was not, for God took him.

25 When Methuselah had lived 187 years, he fathered Lamech. 26 Methuselah lived after he fathered Lamech 782 years and had other sons and daughters. 27 Thus all the days of Methuselah were 969 years, and he died.

28 When Lamech had lived 182 years, he fathered a son 29 and called his name Noah, saying, “Out of the ground that the Lord has cursed this one shall bring us relief from our work and from the painful toil of our hands.” 30 Lamech lived after he fathered Noah 595 years and had other sons and daughters. 31 Thus all the days of Lamech were 777 years, and he died.

32 After Noah was 500 years old, Noah fathered Shem, Ham, and Japheth. (ESV)


11:1 Now the whole earth had one language and the same words. And as people migrated from the east, they found a plain in the land of Shinar and settled there. And they said to one another, “Come, let us make bricks, and burn them thoroughly.” And they had brick for stone, and bitumen for mortar. Then they said, “Come, let us build ourselves a city and a tower with its top in the heavens, and let us make a name for ourselves, lest we be dispersed over the face of the whole earth.” And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of man had built. And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language, and this is only the beginning of what they will do. And nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. Come, let us go down and there confuse their language, so that they may not understand one another’s speech.” So the Lord dispersed them from there over the face of all the earth, and they left off building the city. Therefore its name was called Babel, because there the Lord confused the language of all the earth. And from there the Lord dispersed them over the face of all the earth.

10 These are the generations of Shem. When Shem was 100 years old, he fathered Arpachshad two years after the flood. 11 And Shem lived after he fathered Arpachshad 500 years and had other sons and daughters.

12 When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. 13 And Arpachshad lived after he fathered Shelah 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

14 When Shelah had lived 30 years, he fathered Eber. 15 And Shelah lived after he fathered Eber 403 years and had other sons and daughters.

16 When Eber had lived 34 years, he fathered Peleg. 17 And Eber lived after he fathered Peleg 430 years and had other sons and daughters.

18 When Peleg had lived 30 years, he fathered Reu. 19 And Peleg lived after he fathered Reu 209 years and had other sons and daughters.

20 When Reu had lived 32 years, he fathered Serug. 21 And Reu lived after he fathered Serug 207 years and had other sons and daughters.

22 When Serug had lived 30 years, he fathered Nahor. 23 And Serug lived after he fathered Nahor 200 years and had other sons and daughters.

24 When Nahor had lived 29 years, he fathered Terah. 25 And Nahor lived after he fathered Terah 119 years and had other sons and daughters.

26 When Terah had lived 70 years, he fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran.

27 Now these are the generations of Terah. Terah fathered Abram, Nahor, and Haran; and Haran fathered Lot. 28 Haran died in the presence of his father Terah in the land of his kindred, in Ur of the Chaldeans. 29 And Abram and Nahor took wives. The name of Abram’s wife was Sarai, and the name of Nahor’s wife, Milcah, the daughter of Haran the father of Milcah and Iscah. 30 Now Sarai was barren; she had no child.

31 Terah took Abram his son and Lot the son of Haran, his grandson, and Sarai his daughter-in-law, his son Abram’s wife, and they went forth together from Ur of the Chaldeans to go into the land of Canaan, but when they came to Haran, they settled there. 32 The days of Terah were 205 years, and Terah died in Haran. (ESV)

  • 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

    For there are three that testify: (ESV)

    ? That’s ok, erase it. Don’t like the references to Hell in

    43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.

    Mark 9:45-47

    43 And if your hand causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life crippled than with two hands to go to hell, to the unquenchable fire. 45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell.

    Mark 9:45-47

    45 And if your foot causes you to sin, cut it off. It is better for you to enter life lame than with two feet to be thrown into hell. 47 And if your eye causes you to sin, tear it out. It is better for you to enter the kingdom of God with one eye than with two eyes to be thrown into hell, (ESV)

    , 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.)

    36 the son of Cainan, the son of Arphaxad, the son of Shem, the son of Noah, the son of Lamech, (ESV)

    ->

    12 When Arpachshad had lived 35 years, he fathered Shelah. (ESV)

    (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?)

    And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

    “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (ESV)

    ->

    43 “Rejoice with him, O heavens;
    bow down to him, all gods,
    for he avenges the blood of his children
    and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
    He repays those who hate him
    and cleanses his people’s land.” (ESV)

    (this phrase is in the LXX

    43 “Rejoice with him, O heavens;
    bow down to him, all gods,
    for he avenges the blood of his children
    and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
    He repays those who hate him
    and cleanses his people’s land.” (ESV)

    and in KJV

    And again, when he brings the firstborn into the world, he says,

    “Let all God’s angels worship him.” (ESV)

    , but entirely omitted in the MT and the KJV

    43 “Rejoice with him, O heavens;
    bow down to him, all gods,
    for he avenges the blood of his children
    and takes vengeance on his adversaries.
    He repays those who hate him
    and cleanses his people’s land.” (ESV)

    . Does it bother you that someone took away from God’s word in your KJV?)

    18 But I ask, have they not heard? Indeed they have, for

    “Their voice has gone out to all the earth,
    and their words to the ends of the world.” (ESV)

    ->

    Their voice goes out through all the earth,
    and their words to the end of the world.
    In them he has set a tent for the sun, (ESV)

    40 “He has blinded their eyes
    and hardened their heart,
    lest they see with their eyes,
    and understand with their heart, and turn,
    and I would heal them.” (ESV)

    -> Is 6:10

    15 For this people’s heart has grown dull,
    and with their ears they can barely hear,
    and their eyes they have closed,
    lest they should see with their eyes
    and hear with their ears
    and understand with their heart
    and turn, and I would heal them.’
    (ESV)

    -> Is 6:10

    For this is he who was spoken of by the prophet Isaiah when he said,

    “The voice of one crying in the wilderness:
    ‘Prepare the way of the Lord;
    make his paths straight.’” (ESV)

    ;

    the voice of one crying in the wilderness:
    ‘Prepare the way of the Lord,
    make his paths straight,’” (ESV)

    ;

    23 He said, “I am the voice of one crying out in the wilderness, ‘Make straight the way of the Lord,’ as the prophet Isaiah said.” (ESV)

    -> 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

    14 But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have firmly believed, knowing from whom you learned it 15 and how from childhood you have been acquainted with the sacred writings, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus. 16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness, 17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work. (ESV)

    )

    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 to Bryan Cancel 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: *