Theologically Driven

Is the Preface to the King James Version Really an Embarrassment to the KJV-Only Movement?

Bill Combs — Wed, 16 May 2012 10:00:40 +0000

The Federalist Papers are a series of 85 essays supporting the ratification of the United States Constitution, written by Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay. Madison himself is commonly known as the Father of the Constitution. Federal judges, when interpreting the Constitution, frequently appeal to the Federalist Papers as a contemporary account of the intentions of the authors.

In a recent Wall Street Journal article, Peter Berkowitz observes:

Most astonishing and most revealing is the neglect of The Federalist by graduate schools and law schools. The political science departments at Harvard, Yale, Princeton, Stanford and Berkeley—which set the tone for higher education throughout the nation and train many of the next generation’s professors—do not require candidates for the Ph.D. to study The Federalist.

I think there may be a parallel with the Preface to the King James Version, The Translators to the Reader. If one wishes to understand the KJV, the purposes and intents of the translators themselves, the Preface is the authoritative source. And what it reveals is the exact opposite of the claims made for the KJV by those in the KJV-only movement. The KJV-only position argues that only the KJV is the perfect Word of God without any error. It is no wonder, then, that KJV-only advocates purposely avoid the Preface since it is an embarrassment to their false claims.

Some have taken exception to my use of the word embarrassment in my previous posts concerning the Preface. But surely it’s embarrassing to claim something about a document that the very words of the document itself contradict. Some who have commented on my posts have argued that I should not use the word because I can’t point to any KJV-only advocate who admits being embarrassed by the Preface. Well, naturally, what do you expect? To admit that they are embarrassed by the words of the Preface would be in effect to admit that they are wrong about their KJV-only position.

Some try to get around the statements in the Preface by asserting that they themselves are not arguing for the infallibility of the translators, but the product of their work—the KJV itself. They seek to draw a parallel between the translators and the authors of Scripture, arguing that just as the authors of Scripture were flawed men, yet produced an infallible product, so the translators of the KJV. But this will not do. The only way the KJV, or any edition of it, could be infallible and inerrant is if the persons who produced it were under the same superintending ministry of the Holy Spirit as the authors of Scripture. And anyone who makes such an assertion is not just wrong but spouting heresy.

But even if one argues that the translators of the KJV were superintended by the Holy Spirit in the same way as the original authors, there is still a huge problem. The authors of Scripture, though fallible humans, argued that when writing Scripture they were infallible spokesman for God. About his first letter to the Corinthians, Paul said, “This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, explaining spiritual realities with Spirit-taught words” (1 Cor 2:13). And later he adds, “If anyone thinks they are a prophet or otherwise gifted by the Spirit, let them acknowledge that what I am writing to you is the Lord’s command (1 Cor 14:37).” But, of course, the exact opposite claim is made by the translators of the KJV. They clearly distinguish the work of translators like themselves from the authors of Scripture: “For whatever was perfect under the sun, where Apostles or apostolick men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God’s Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?”

So, admittedly, no KJV-only advocate is going to admit that the Preface is an embarrassment to their position, but what else can one say about a view of the KJV that is utterly and thoroughly contradicted by the very words of those who produced it?

What about the Framework Interpretation? (Part 1)

Bob McCabe — Mon, 14 May 2012 10:00:15 +0000

The current popularity of the framework interpretation of the Genesis creation account is largely a result of the work of Reformed scholar Meredith G. Kline. His initial entry was an article in the late 1950s, “Because It Had Not Rained” (Westminster Theological Journal 20 [May 1958]: 145–57). Since Kline’s initial article, other reputable Christian scholars have attempted to provide defenses of the framework interpretation (for a fuller discussion of this view as well as scholars supporting it, see my two journal articles here and here; for a condensation read my chapter in Coming to Grips with Genesis).

The framework view asserts that the creation “week” of Genesis 1:1–2:3 is a literary device intended to present God’s creative activity in a topical, non-sequential manner, rather than a literal, sequential one. Kline and others support the framework theory with three primary arguments. First, advocates of this position contend that the figurative nature of the creation account demonstrates that it is arranged topically rather than chronologically. Second, it is further asserted that ordinary providence governed the creation account. Third, this view maintains that that the unending nature of the seventh day indicates that the six days of the creation week are not normal days.

In this post and two subsequent ones, I will critique the framework view. With this entry I will briefly outline the first thesis and then follow with an evaluation. In following posts, I will examine the other two theses.

The Literary Nature of the Creation Account — The framework interpretation argues that God uses the imagery of an ordinary week to serve as a rhetorical structure for God’s acts of creation. Using the literary metaphor of a “week,” the author of Genesis uses something of a semi-poetic account, where Days 1–3 find a parallel in Days 4–6. Both triads are subordinate to God’s eternal Sabbath rest on the seventh day. Framework advocates use the following chart to explain this scheme.

As this chart shows, the structural arrangement of both triads indicates that the literary arrangement of the creation account reflects a topical arrangement rather than a chronological sequence, and it emphasizes divine creative activities that culminate with the Creator King’s Sabbath rest. Further, the luminaries of Day 4 control Day 1, the creatures of Day 5 govern Day 2, and the creatures of Day 6 have jurisdiction over Day 3.

However, there are at least two problems with interpreting the creation account as a semi-poetic account. First, while Genesis 1:1–2:3 reflects a somewhat stylistic use of Hebrew narrative because of its repeated phrases, the 55 uses of waw consecutive (a Hebrew verbal form that is predominantly used in Hebrew sequential narrative literature) strongly argues that the creation account is a sequential, chronological narrative and not a semi-poetic account. Second, the supposed parallels between the two triads are strained. For instance, the framework argues that the luminaries of Day 4 are an intentional replication of the light created on Day 1. However, this overlooks the important point that the luminaries of Day 4 are placed in the expanse created on Day 2. Thus, the luminaries of Day 4 presuppose the creation of the physical phenomenon of light on Day 1 and the expanse on Day 2. Consequently, there is nothing significant in Genesis 1:1–2:3 to undermine the traditional view that maintains this is a historical, sequential account affirming that God created the heavens, the earth and all things therein over the course of six literal, sequential days.

In the next post, I will look at the second thesis supporting the framework.

Another View of Logos

Bill Combs — Sun, 13 May 2012 10:00:26 +0000

The three main Bible software programs today are Logos, BibleWorks, and Accordance. Logos and BibleWorks are mainly for the PC (though Logos now has a Macintosh version), while Accordance is exclusively a Mac product. BibleWorks and Accordance are commonly known for their emphasis on working with the original languages, while Logos is touted for its many text modules, so that one can have virtually one’s entire library in a digital format. I have personally observed that a number of our students who are preparing for foreign mission work have decided to get rid of their physical libraries and go the Logos route. However, here is a contrary view by someone headed for the foreign field, titled “Five Reasons Not to Buy Logos.”

Interview with a Transitioning Pastor

Jared Compton — Fri, 11 May 2012 10:00:47 +0000

One of the inevitabilities of working in a seminary community is that you’re likely to lose quite a few dear friends over the course of your tenure. It’s not because seminaries require vows of friendlessness, alongside those of poverty and humility. Rather, it’s because seminaries train pastors—reliable folks who pass along what they’ve learned to others (2 Tim 2:2). And, sadly, these others don’t always fall within the shadow of the training seminary. In about a month, our community here will lose another dear friend and, in this case, a valuable colleague. Our own Dan Winnberg has accepted a call to a senior pastorate near Boston, MA. In light of this, we thought it’d be helpful to have Dan reflect a bit with us on the transition and, particularly, the candidating process, since others in our own community and elsewhere will likely find themselves in similar situations. Here’s what he had to say.

Jared: For starters, why don’t you briefly describe your present post and the one you’ll be transitioning into shortly.

Dan: Sure. I’m one of the pastors for instruction and discipleship at Inter-City Baptist Church in Allen Park, MI, a role I’ve had since 2005. My responsibilities include, among other things, shepherding our young married fellowship class and overseeing the church’s Information Technology. I’m also on the faculty of Detroit Baptist Theological Seminary, where I’ve taught a course on preaching for the last two years. Prior to joining the pastoral staff, I served for a handful of years in the church’s Christian day school, while I completed my M.Div. at DBTS. In fact, altogether, I’ve been working for Inter-City for over 12 years.

In February of last year I was contacted—unsolicited—by The Church of the Open Bible (COB), Burlington, MA. Their senior pastor had just retired and they were beginning the search for his replacement. This initial contact led to several months of discussion with their elders and a number of visits. This past February, I officially became a candidate and was subsequently called to be their next pastor. Lord willing, we will be moving in June, and I’ll begin my new responsibilities in early July.

Jared: Now tell us a bit about how you made the decision to accept this call.

Dan: Well, when the opportunity presented itself, I tried to evaluate it in light of biblically-informed wisdom. Three things in particular suggested to me that God was leading me to accept this call. First, while I’ve not been actively pursuing a senior pastoral position, I’ve had a steady desire to be engaged in this sort of work for the last several years (cf. 1 Tim 3:1). Importantly, my wife recognized this and encouraged me to pursue the opportunity as it unfolded. Second, the current elders at COB have shown themselves to be humble, teachable men who really want to know God’s Word. Their serious commitment to doctrine was evident in the questions they asked me over the course of our several interviews! And, besides their character (cf. 1 Tim 3), they also displayed true competence for their task (see, e.g., 1 Tim 3:4; 5:17), and we seemed thoroughly compatible (cf. Acts 15:25)—meaning: I think we can work together in ministry. Third, the people of COB have demonstrated remarkable servant-mindedness, remaining actively involved in the ministry there even during this interim period when they’re without a senior pastor.

Jared: I wonder if you could tell us about how you shepherded your own family through this transition.

Dan: Yes, very good question. I was concerned, of course, to shepherd my wife and three children through all this, regardless of the outcome of the church’s vote. One of the decisions my wife and I initially had to make was when to tell our children about the opportunity. We decided to let them know just prior to our first visit as a family (my third visit). We asked them to keep it in-house and, therefore, not to share it with their friends. We informed them of the steps involved in the process, including the possibility of more visits and that the church might eventually vote on whether or not to make me their next pastor. During our first family visit, my 6-year-old daughter, who was sitting next to me during the service, leaned over while I was being introduced by one of the elders and asked, “Dad, is this when they vote?” (Her innocent question calmed my nerves!)

Another way I tried to shepherd my family was through family prayer. Specifically, we routinely prayed together that God would give us and the church wisdom and, therefore, that he’d make his direction clear. This gave me the opportunity to talk with my family about how one finds and applies God’s wisdom. For this we looked at Proverbs 2. (Kevin DeYoung’s book Just Do Something was very helpful here.) We talked about how one gets wisdom by reading the Bible—by storing up God’s commands (v. 1). We also talked about how one gets wisdom by listening to sound advice, which is what Solomon means when he talks about turning your ear to wisdom (v. 2). Here I shared how I’d talked with other pastors and asked them to help me wisely think through the opportunity. Finally, we talked about how we needed to pray to God and call out for insight (v. 3).

Following the vote, we sat down with our kids and let them know how God had answered our prayers. Since we’d prayed that God’s will would be clear and, related, that the church’s response would be unified, I asked my kids how God had answered this. My son answered, “It seems that a 91% positive vote by the church is pretty clear what God would have us do.”

Jared: One thing I really appreciated about the way you approached this process was your commitment to full disclosure. You didn’t try to sell yourself to the church. Rather, you wanted them to know exactly what they might be getting themselves into. Could you talk about this?

Dan: Yes. This was a deliberate decision on my part. So, when it came to my communication with the elders, I wanted to be absolutely upfront about what I believed. I didn’t just want to give them “yes” and “no” answers. Rather, I wanted to go further and explain the philosophy behind my answers. While this did make for some longer conversations—in which the elders showed great patience!—it allowed me to clearly and thoroughly establish who I was and what I believed. I didn’t want there to be any surprises. (I remember, at one point, telling the elders that I was not a political candidate hoping to win their vote.) My advice for others who find themselves in similar situations is to be exactly who you are and to do it with humility. I told the elders that I wanted to learn and grow with them, but I didn’t hesitate to clearly express what I believed as well.

I also wanted to communicate very openly with the entire congregation. So, e.g., when I had completed a rather extensive questionnaire about my doctrinal views, I asked that it be made readily available for the congregation, both in print and online. Some of the elders will admit that they were nervous about putting all this information online. Yet, in the end, we all agreed that this served them and the congregation well. It showed the congregation just how seriously the elders were taking their responsibility and, as a result, increased the congregation’s confidence in them. And, it gave the congregation more than enough information to make the following public Q&A a rich and valuable experience. (On a side note, I found it very helpful that the elders had the congregation submit questions in advance.)

For some additional help, interested readers will want to check out the recent 9Marks Journal entitled “Pastoral Moves,” esp. this interview with Michael Lawrence. And, if you’ve had a similar experience and have some advice to share, we’d love to hear from you.

Marginal Notes in the King James Version

Bill Combs — Wed, 09 May 2012 10:00:58 +0000

The King James-only view argues that only the 1611 KJV is the Word of God in English. All other versions or translations are so corrupt that they are not to be used, nor be appealed to as the Word of God. Most KJV-only advocates contend that the printed Greek text from which the KJV was translated, commonly called the Textus Receptus (TR), is inspired and inerrant, and the KJV is the only translation that accurately translates the TR. But this is not true. The New King James Version (NKJV) is also translated from the TR. Being TR based, the NKJV cannot so easily be discounted by KJV-only proponents. Therefore, they seek to find other ways to disqualify the NKJV.

A common complaint against the NKJV by KJV-only advocates is the use of notes provided by the translators. For example, D. A. Waite says:

The diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them. By so doing, they confuse the readers. The editors have made no decision as to what God’s Words really are (Defending the King James Bible, p. 125).

William P. Grady sounds a similar warning:

When a study is made of the footnote section in the NKJV, one discovers a classic example of compromise. Understanding the self-centered nature of today’s carnal believers, Nelson Publishers decided to let their customers have a literal choice between three different Greek readings!… Can you imagine the confusion being wrought among laypeople as they suddenly discover their new responsibilities to become textual critics? (Final Authority, p. 304)

But the translators of the KJV were not opposed to such notes. In a study of the marginal notes in the 1611 KJV, F. H. A. Scrivener counted 6,637 in the OT, 1,018 in the Apocrypha, and 767 in the NT, for a total of 8,422 (The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 56). In their Preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” the KJV translators argued strongly for their inclusion:

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point.… It hath pleased God in his Divine Providence here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difﬁculty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain), but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than conﬁdence,… There be many words in the Scriptures which be never found there but once.… Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts, and precious stones, &c. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have deﬁned this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Hierome [Jerome] somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily?… Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of translations is proﬁtable for ﬁnding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signiﬁcation and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good; yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.… They that are wise had rather have their judgments at liberty in difference of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.

Of the 767 notes in the NT, 35 are explanatory notes or brief expositions, 582 give alternative translations, 112 give a more literal rendering of the Greek than the translators judged suitable for the text, and 37 give readings of different manuscripts (Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, p. 56). An example of an explanatory note is found at the word “measures” in Matthew 13:33. The note reads: “The worde in the Greek is a measure conteining about a peck and an halfe, wanting litle more then a pinte.” An alternative translation is found in Matthew 6:2. The text reads: “Therefore when thou doest thine alms, do not sound a trumpet before thee….” The margin suggests the translation: “Therefore when thou doest thine alms, cause not a trumpet to be sounded before thee….” A more literal translation is found at Romans 7:5, where the text reads: “For when we were in the ﬂesh, the motions of sins, which were by the law.…” The margin explains that the Greek word for “motions” is literally “passions.” Finally, in Luke 17:36 is found an example of a variant reading. Beside the words “Two men shall be in the ﬁeld; the one shall be taken, and the other left,” the margin reads: “This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies.” This is the same note which is found in the NKJV. In fact, nine of the thirty-seven textual notes in the 1611 KJV are also found in the NKJV. Yet Waite and Grady castigate the NKJV for doing the same thing the 1611 KJV did.

Again, the Preface of the 1611 KJV proves to be an embarrassment to the KJV-only position since in the Preface the translators approve the use of explanatory notes, including textual ones, that KJV-advocates harshly condemn.

The Latin Vulgate as Background to the Version Debate

John Aloisi — Mon, 07 May 2012 10:00:41 +0000

In light of Bill Combs’s recent posts on the King James Version, I thought it might be helpful to look briefly at another Bible translation that dominated Western Christendom for even longer than the King James. From time to time, KJV-only advocates have argued for the superiority of the KJV based on the fact that it was the most commonly used translation of the Bible for more than three centuries. In other words, antiquity and long use are sometimes cited as proof that the KJV is the best translation of the Scriptures. However, such reasoning usually overlooks the fact that one translation has the KJV beat by more than a half millennium.

Jerome (c. 345–420) was born in or near Italy to wealthy Christian parents who made sure he received an outstanding education. Around the age of 20, he was apparently baptized, and after pursuing an ascetic lifestyle for a number of years, Jerome was ordained around 380. Within a few years, he was living in Rome where he was employed in the service of Pope Damasus (d. 384). At the request of Damasus, Jerome began a revision of the Latin NT. Damasus did not live to see the work completed, but Jerome finished the NT around 391. He also eventually completed a new Latin translation of the OT in the early fifth century. Jerome’s translation of the Scriptures would later become known as the Vulgate, in distinction from the Vetus Latina (the collective name for Latin translations that pre-dated Jerome’s work).

When Jerome undertook his translation of the Scriptures into Latin, multiple Latin versions already existed. But the OT of most of these versions had been translated from the LXX rather than the Hebrew Bible, and the existing Latin versions differed from each other in significant ways (Kelly, Jerome, p. 86). Some church leaders felt that the church needed a single Latin translation that would be accepted by all Western Christians as the authoritative text of Scripture. Little did they realize the staying power that Jerome’s work would have or the extent to which Christians would eventually be cut off from the Scriptures when the Vulgate remained the standard translation of the Bible but few could understand spoken Latin much less read it for themselves.

For most of the Middle Ages, the Latin Vulgate was the accepted Bible of Western Christendom. It was read in the churches and was considered the standard text in theological discourse. When various individuals began producing Bible translations in the vernacular languages of Europe in the Late Middle Ages, such versions, though welcomed by some, were largely viewed with suspicion by ecclesiastical leaders. Following the spread of the printing press in the late fifteenth century, the dissemination of vernacular Bible translations provided the foundation of the Protestant Reformation in the sixteenth century.

Largely in response to the Reformation, the Council of Trent met between 1545 and 1563. During one of its early sessions (April 1546), the council fathers declared that the Latin Vulgate, which had been used “for so many hundred years,” is the only “authentic” version of the Bible. Versions produced in the common tongue were not so recognized, for, among other reasons, they lacked the approval of antiquity and centuries of common use. Likewise when Catholic scholars produced an English translation of the OT in 1609, they defended their decision to translate from the Latin Vulgate by noting that “the old Vulgate Latin edition hath been preferred and used for the most authentical above a thousand and three hundred years.” Once again, antiquity and long use were cited as proof of the Vulgate’s superiority.

The desire for a single, authoritative translation of the Bible is not of recent origin. Although KJV-only advocates are usually very careful to distance themselves from Roman Catholicism, their insistence upon a single “authentic” version of the Bible bears some resemblance to Tridentine Catholicism. And arguments for a particular Bible translation based on date of publication and length of use were actually used against Protestants long before they were used by Protestants. If centuries of common use is the test of a Bible translation, it will be a while until the KJV catches up to the Vulgate. In the meantime, when it comes to the version debate, translation antiquity and long use may not be the best arguments to employ.

The Real Indiana Jones

Bill Combs — Sat, 05 May 2012 23:54:37 +0000

That’s the title of an interview with Dr. Bryant Wood and Prof. Todd Bolen. Wood was the lecturer for the Seminary’s 2012 Rice Lectures. Bolen was our guide for the Seminary’s Israel Study tour in 2000. The interview discusses how both men got involved in biblical archaeology, what are the important finds, how objects are dated, and the role of faith in doing archaeology.

“Saved, Baptized, and a Member in Good Standing”

Mark Snoeberger — Fri, 04 May 2012 10:00:45 +0000

I heard that phrase once a month growing up, and for years never considered the possibility that Baptists would administer the Lord’s Supper any other way. I attend a church today in which I hear much the same thing, but now know that the practice is rarer than I previously imagined. Still, I think it is the most defensible position in the Church today.

The Christian Church recognizes three models for inviting believers to the Table: Open, Close, and Closed. Open Communion is the broadest model. By open is meant that a church invites to the Table all who profess faith in Christ. This model operates on the premise that, irrespective all other differences, Christians share a common invisible union with Christ.

In Close Communion a church likewise invites to the Table believers outside its membership, but limits that invitation to believers who are walking in ecclesiastical obedience. This model operates on the premise that the ordinance celebrates not only the invisible union of believers with Christ, but also the visible union of believers in local assemblies. As such the Table is extended only to believers who have joined a local church (hence the “baptism” part), and are not under discipline by that church (hence the “good standing” part). Many formulas also add the phrase “in a church of like faith and practice,” to ensure that everyone means the same thing by “saved,” “baptized,” and “church.”

Closed Communion is the narrowest model. It operates on the same premise as Close Communion, but logically concludes that no church can successfully adjudicate a person’s worthiness to eat unless that person is under the watchcare of the host church. As such, it “closes off” communion to all but its own membership, despite clear biblical examples to the contrary (e.g., Paul’s eating with the church at Troas in Acts 20:7).

Why do I accept the middle position? Well, simply, because of Paul’s first letter to the Corinthians. In it we find two major principles with respect to the church’s practice of the Lord’s Supper: (1) Christians are unequivocally not to eat with a believer that has been dismissed from the membership of his local church (1 Cor 5:11), and (2) Communion is not to be celebrated in a way that disdains all or part of the local assembly (1 Cor 11:17–33). These principles, it seems, necessarily assume a third point, viz., (3) that in order to celebrate the ordinance, a Christian must be properly attached to a church in the first place—there is no “out” for Christians who evade church discipline by not joining a church in the first place or who think they can avoid Paul’s injunctions against disregarding the Lord’s body by ignoring the Lord’s body altogether.

The Christian and even the Baptist tradition is split on this issue, and it is unnecessary that we resolve this issue in order to extend Christian recognition to one another. Nonetheless, the issue is not an unimportant one to the unity and purity of God’s church. May God give us all wisdom as we consider this controversial topic.

Is the King James Version the Final Authority?

Bill Combs — Wed, 02 May 2012 10:00:06 +0000

The King James-only movement suggests that with the coming of the KJV there was no need for further translation work and that the proliferation of modern versions is harmful to the church. Yet the translators of the KJV faced the same objection. They note in their preface, “The Translators to the Reader,” that there was nothing unique about their work—it was only a continuation of the process of revision of previous translations and that making improvements in translations is a positive thing.

Yet before we end, we must answer a third cavill and objection of theirs against us, for altering and amending our Translations so oft; wherein truely they deal hardly and strangely with us. For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?

But it is high time to leave them, and to shew in brief what we proposed to ourselves, and what course we held, in this our perusal and survey of the Bible. Truly, good Christian Reader, we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one;…but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be expected against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.

KJV-only advocates commonly speak of the King James Version as the final authority in English Bibles, as though the KJV text was fixed in 1611. But that is nonsensical in light of the historical facts. First, there is legitimate debate as to the original text of the original 1611 edition since there were apparently two versions printed in 1611, commonly called the “He” and “She” Bibles, from their respective readings in Ruth 3:15 (“he went into the city” and “she went into the city”). These two 1611 editions differ in about 450 places (see David Norton, Textual History of the King James Bible, pp. 173–79). Second, modern printed versions of the KJV are significantly different from the 1611 editions. This is because the KJV has been revised numerous times. Corrections were made in 1612, 1613, 1616, and 1617; more extensive revisions followed in 1629, 1638, 1762, and 1769. It is principally the 4th major revision by Benjamin Blayney in 1769 that is in use today.

There are literally hundreds of differences between the 1611 KJV and modern printed editions. Let me list a few examples (see F. H. A. Scrivener, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible, pp. 148ff.):

	1611 KJV	Modern KJV
Gen 39:16	until her lord came home	until his lord came home
Num 6:14	and one lamb without blemish	and one ram without blemish
Deut 26:1	which the Lord giveth	which the Lord thy God giveth
Josh 13:29	half tribe of Manasseh	half tribe of the children of Manasseh
Judg 11:2	and his wives sons grew up	and his wife’s sons grew up
1 Sam 18:27	David arose, he and his men	David arose and went, he and his men
1 Sam 28:7	And his servant said to him	And his servants said to him
2 Kgs 11:10	that were in the Temple	that were in the temple of the Lord
1 Chr 7:5	were men of might	were valiant men of might
2 Chr 28:11	ﬁerce wrath of God is upon you	ﬁerce wrath of the Lord is upon you
Job 39:30	where the slain are, there is he	where the slain are, there is she
Jer 34:16	whom ye had set at liberty	whom he had set at liberty
Jer 38:16	So the king sware secretly	So Zedekiah the king sware secretly
Jer 49:1	why then doth their king inherit God	why then doth their king inherit Gad
Ezek 3:11	unto thy people	unto the children of thy people
Joel 1:16	Is not the meat cut off before your eyes	Is not the meat cut off before our eyes
Matt 12:23	Is this the son of David?	Is not this the son of David?
Luke 1:3	perfect understanding of things	perfect understanding of all things
John 15:20	The servant is not greater than the Lord	The servant is not greater than his lord
Rom 3:24	the redemption that is in Jesus Christ	the redemption that is in Christ Jesus
1 Cor 12:28	helps in governments, diversities of tongues	helps, governments, diversities of tongues
1 Cor 15:41	another of the moon	and another glory of the moon
2 Cor 5:2	For in this we groan earnestly, desiring to be clothed	For in this we groan, earnestly desiring to be clothed
2 Cor 11:32	the King, kept the city with a garrison	the king kept the city of the Damascenes with a garrison
1 Tim 1:4	rather than edifying	rather than godly edifying
1 Pet 2:1	and envies, and evil speakings	and envies, and all evil speakings
1 John 5:12	he that hath not the Son, hath not life	he that hath not the Son of God hath not life

As the translators of the KJV said in their Preface, “For to whom ever was it imputed for a fault (by such as were wise) to go over that which he had done, and to amend it where he saw cause?” And indeed the KJV has been amended numerous times since 1611. For KJV-only advocates to argue that they hold the 1611 KJV as their final authority is at best silly and ill-informed, and at worst, extremely dishonest.

Original 1611 King James Version Discovered

Bill Combs — Mon, 30 Apr 2012 18:36:33 +0000