Unworthy, you are right that we will not likely change our minds, but have a look at a few errors that the article you mentioned commits fairly quickly.
First, the author points out 2 different instances of something that he claims has "destroyed the faith of millions", ie the theory of evolution and the RSV... stop right there... this is irrational in that it commits an informal fallacy called "poisoning the well".. why? because the author tries to place in the reader's mind that anyone who thinks that reading a version other than the KJV is likened to one who believes in the theory of evolution. In reality, the theory of evolution and the use of a translation other than the KJV have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. So why place them side by side like that? Well because it is just a psychological tactic to try and get the reader to associate the evils of the theory of evolution with the "evils" of a translation other than the KJV.
Secondly the author of the article says that the use of the RSV has "spawned a host of unholy offspring". The reason this is fallacy is as follows... the author tries to get people to think that it is the use of the RSV that has led to theological error. The problem with this is that there have been instances of "unholy offspring" who have relied on the KJV! eg the Jehovah's Witnesses. So, using the author's own logic, since the Jehovah's Witnesses are an example of "unholy offspring", and further, that they used the KJV, therefore, according to the author's logic, the KJV it the source of their error and we need to blame the version of the Bible they used as being the source fo their error! (I am aware that the JWs now -- since 1961-- have their own translation of the Bible, eg the NWT, the point is that for many many years, when this cult first started, it used the KJV and sometimes the ASV and in fact, members of this cult will still use either of these when they go door to door.) However, the larger point here is that just because some people use a version of the Bible to support their heresy, it does not follow that the version of the bible is ITSELF responsible for their heresy, otherwise we would have to also blame the KJV since some cults use and have used this version of the bible as well.Rather it is the people themselves who are responsible, not the version of the Bible they use. To illustrate this further, I would ask that you name any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith that you personally adhere to and compare your beliefs with what I believe. I would venture to say that our beliefs are fairly similar, even though I use a different version of the bible than you do..
Thirdly I would ask you: why do you prefer the KJV over the Geneva Bible? The Geneva came before it, it is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV is based on...so all of the arguments that KJV only folks use could be used to support the Geneva... indeed when the KJV first came along there were cries of protest at this "new" "modern" translation of 1611... it just couldn't be a good translation, they derided the character of the man who commissioned to have the work done in the first place, that he was a man of ill repute and was persecuting the people of God who disagreed with his doctrines concerning Lex Rex, and they impugned the character of those on the translation committee, just as the KJV only people have done with those on the translation committees for other versions. They argue that the doctrine of preservation means that since they had the Geneva translation, they did not need any other "newfangled" translations to come along and throw the people of God into confusion. Furthermore, the only reason the King James Bible ever became more popular than the Geneva Bible is because the King issued an edict forbidding the use of the Geneva, even though 50 years after the publication of the King James, the Geneva was still the preferred bible by the majority of people, both lay persons and scholars. "However, what finally decided the issue in favor of the King James Bible had little to do with the relative merits of the two (Geneva versus the King James) translations. After the death of King James, his son Charles I ascended to the throne. Charles appointed William Laud, who had been Bishop of London, to the see of Canterbury. One of Laud's first orders was to forbid the printing of the Geneva Bible in England to assure uniformity of Bibles. At first, this did not cause any difficulty because it was easy to procure copies from overseas. However, Laud issued an edict forbidding the importation of the Geneva Bible because it would cause economic hardship to British printers. The last printing of the Geneva Bible was done in Amsterdam in 1644." It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. However, there is one further irony that exists. Another name given to the King James Bible is the Authorized Version or "A.V." However, there is no record that any official authorization was ever given to the King James Version." (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html)
Fourthly I would point out that a person could believe in the doctrine of the preservation of the word of God, and still deny that the KJV MUST be the only English Bible one uses or embodies that preserved word. In any case, the translators of the King James Version, in the preface to the 1611 (http://watch.pair.com/TR-8-kjv-revision.html) were themselves honest that theirs was but a translation, and that revisions ought to CONTINUE to be made. "the Translators’ humble and honest admission that all translations, including their own, are by their very nature imperfect and must, therefore, “be maturely considered and examined...that...if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” The Translators took a dim view of those who protested revision of the English Bible, accusing them of having an evil eye and hindering the spiritual profit of the Church. These critics they likened to Sanballat and Tobiah who withstood the Jews who labored to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem—a very fitting analogy!" So the point here is that the translators of the very version of the Bible that KJV Onlyists exalt would not, themselves, have taken such a view! They realized that their effort was, while being an honest effort, was still just the product of sinful humans and was in no way equal to the inerracy and inspiration that is ascribed only to the original manuscripts.
Fifthly the author of the article states "They all present conflicting messages with the King James Version and even with each other... They omit many words, verses and passages of Scripture...." etc etc
But just because a version of the Bible conflicts with the KJV it does not follow that the other versions are "corrupt", maybe the KJV is is actually mistaken rather than the other version..... So the only thing that can be proven by saying that a given version is different than the KJV is that they are different from one another, that's it. You can't PRESUPPOSE that the KJV is THE standard, and then say that anything that differs from it is somehow corrupt. This is circular reasoning and is never valid. So the circle of reasoning looks like this:
the KJV is the standard
anything that differs from the KJV is corrupt
therefore the KJV is the standard..
this just isn't reasonable... and the circularity is evident...
Sixthly the author writes "They all cast doubt on the accuracy of the KJV and several fundamental doctrines taught in it, such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, His divinity, His miracles, His bodily ascension to heaven and His second coming."
But this just isn't true. I use versions of the bible other than the KJV and I believe that versions like the NASB or the ESV clearly teach the virgin birth, that Christ was truly God and truly man, that He performed many great miracles, that He ascended bodily into heaven, that He will return again one day to judge the world. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, you could have found and could still find people who denied any one of these doctrines and yet, they used the KJV! So you simply cannot blame the version of the Bible that people use as being the source or the cause of why some people have heretical beliefs. You will find people that have heretical beliefs who use all sorts of biblical translations, including the KJV. In fact, in the many atheists I have debated, they use the KJV more than any other versions.
Next, the author states "They all disagree on major doctrinal points with other early European versions of the Bible which triggered the great Protestant Reformation and for which tens of thousands of true believers died during the dark ages."
Really? I would have to see proof for this assertion, and there just isn't any forthcoming. Its just an assertion, nothing more. Furthermore, again the author engages in a subtle tactic, he wants you to associate in your mind an emotional response, that to deny the KJV is tantamount to denying the validity of the deaths of many martyrs. However, I challenge you find one single martyr who died defending the thesis that the KJV is THE only true version of the Bible. You won't. They died for many other noble reasons, and to try and take advantage of the value and meaning of their deaths in order to defend an idea that they themselves would not have agreed to is cheap as well as misleading, and taints their memory and the sacrifice they made.
Next he says "-They are warmly welcomed by the Roman Catholic Church which has long considered the King James Bible its number one enemy."
Again, this just isn't true. The Roman Catholics have only certain bibles that have the official imprimatur, and I could list the versions that they use, but notice this: no Roman Catholic would be "allowed" to use any bible that does not contain the Apocrypha. Now, since most of the newer English translations of the Bible do not contain the Apocrypha, the author's contention that the new versions are "warmly welcomed by the Roman catholic Church" is an outright falsehood. One Roman Catholic site discussing this issue points out that:
"Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading."
Furthermore the following quotation is from a Roman Catholic priest PRAISING the King James Version!
"a Roman Catholic priest, ... in 1792.... paid tribute to the (King James) Bible:
"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision." (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html)
So by using the author's own logic, since a Roman Catholic "warmly embraced" the King James Version, it ought to therefore be discounted as not worthy of our attention!!
Next, the author quotes the Westminster Confession: "Concerning Providential Preservation the Westminster Confession of Faith ( 17th century ) says this on page 23: " The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them." But the problem here is that this document teaches specifically against his contention that the KJV is the ONLY version of the word of God we can trust! Nowhere does the Confession state that only the KJV must be used. It simply says that it was the Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts that were divinely inspired by God! NOT the translations of those manuscripts. So this quotation completely undercuts the author's entire thesis.
Next, while I could go on through this article, that seems counter productive since many of his foundational theses are untrue, thus the edifice he builds on this unstable foundation falls... the author asks "These discoveries are disturbing to say the least and should cause true believers to ask: - Is all this true, are these allegations justified?"
As I believer, I asked, and I found his allegations to be, in many cases, untrue eg unjustified. . So when he asks "If so, what spirit is behind the deception and confusion caused by the modern translations?" I would have to say that the confusion is an unnecessary one that he is creating out of whole cloth, and that the fact that there is confusion is NOT due simply and only to the use of other English translations because of the simple fact that there was confusion in the church long before the KJV itself ever came along, let alone the other English translations, and that the confusion (heresy etc) persisted even when the KJV was at the height of it's popularity, in other words even when the most widely used bible was the KJV, this in and of itself did not stop the fact that heresy and confusion were also present. In other words, its not the version of the Bible that one uses which creates this confusion., that is a diversionary tactic used by people who no doubt are well meaning in their desire to see the people of God unified doctrinally. Rather the reason there is confusion and heresy in the church is because people are sinners, and the evil one seeks to kill and destroy, and he is doing his job well as is evidenced by the people who want to try and divide Christians over which version of the Bible they use!
Next I would ask "which version of the KJV do you use? The 1611? 1613? 1616? 1617? 1629? 1638? 1762? 1769? "F.H.A. Scrivener’s volume, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives" documents hundreds of textual revisions of the original 1611 King James Version. Scrivener’s Appendix A titled “Wrong readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions” reveals that a surprising number of the revisions were not of misspellings or typos but correction of translation errors. In other words, wrong readings which tainted the interpretation of verses. Even D.A. Waite admitted there have been “136 substantial changes that were different words...136 changes of substance” between the original 1611 KJV and the present day (Old Scofield) KJV. (Defending the King James Bible, p. 244) " (ibid) Here are some examples of how the King James has changed over the years:
1611 KING JAMES VERSION LATER EDITIONS OF KJV
Gen. xxxix. 16 her lord his lord, 1638
Lev. 26:40 confess the iniquity of their fathers (the iniquities, 1613) confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers (1616)
Jer. 38:16 So the king sware So Zedekiah the king sware
I Kings 11:5 Amorites (Ammorites 1612) Ammonites, 1629
II Kings 11:10 the Temple the temple of the Lord, 1638
2 Chron. iii. 10 most holy place most holy house, 1629,
2 Chron. xxxii. 5 prepared Millo repaired Millo, 1616, 1617
Ezra ii. 22 The children of Netophah The men of Netophah, 1638
Job xxxix. 30 there is he there is she, 1616, 16171
Psalm ii. 6 & marg. Sion Zion, 16382. Cf. Ps. lxix. 35
Psalm lxv. 1 Sion Zion, Amer. 1867 only. See below, note 2
Psalm lxix. 32 seek good seek God, 1617
Psalm lxix. 35 Sion Zion, 1761.Cf. p. 165 note 2
Ezek. i. 17 returned / Bishops Bible turned, 1769. Cf. vers. 9, 12
Ezek. iii.11 thy people the children of thy people, 1638
Ezek. xxiv. 7 poured it poured it not, 1613
Ezek. xlvi. 23 a new building a row of building, 1638
Dan. xii. 13 in the lot in thy lot, 1638
Zech. vii. 7 of the plain and the plain, 1638
Matt. vi. 3 thy right doeth thy right hand doeth, 1613 (not 1616, 1617), 1629, 1630
Matt. xxvi. 75 the words of Jesus the word of Jesus, 1762
Luke i. 3 understanding of things understanding of all things, 1629
Luke xi. 3 his sister his sisters, 1629
John vii. 16 Jesus answered them, Jesus answered them, and said, 1634, 1638
John xv. 20 than the Lord (lord 1629-1743) than his lord, 1762
Acts. xxiv. 24 which was a Jew which was a Jewess, 1629. Cf. ch. xvi. 1
1 Cor. xii. 28 helps in governments helps, governments, 1629
2 Cor. xi. 32 the city the city of the Damascenes, 1629
Eph. vi. 24 sincerity sincerity, Amen, 1616 (not 1617, 1629 C.)
2 Thess. ii. 14 the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ, 1629
1 Tim. i. 4 edifying godly edifying, 1638 (Tynd.-Bps’)
2 Tim. iv. 13 bring with thee bring with thee, and the books, 1616, 1617, 1629 C. & L., 1630.
1 John v. 12 hath not the Son1 hath not the Son of God, 1629 C. (not 1629 L., 1630), 16382.
Heb. x. 23 faith hope.
So though I realize that neither of us is likely going to change our minds, I want you to at least know WHY it is that I believe as I do... I have looked at the KJV only arguments carefully, read numerous books both pro and con KJV onlyism, and I have concluded that the KJV Only doctrine is actually a man made doctrine, a tradition of men, a doctrine which one will not find in the pages of Scripture itself. Therefore, since I am committed to believe the bible and only what the bible teaches, and not man made traditions, even if those traditions be well meaning, I have to reject KJV onlyism, and above are some of the reasons why......
blessings,
ken
First, the author points out 2 different instances of something that he claims has "destroyed the faith of millions", ie the theory of evolution and the RSV... stop right there... this is irrational in that it commits an informal fallacy called "poisoning the well".. why? because the author tries to place in the reader's mind that anyone who thinks that reading a version other than the KJV is likened to one who believes in the theory of evolution. In reality, the theory of evolution and the use of a translation other than the KJV have nothing whatsoever to do with one another. So why place them side by side like that? Well because it is just a psychological tactic to try and get the reader to associate the evils of the theory of evolution with the "evils" of a translation other than the KJV.
Secondly the author of the article says that the use of the RSV has "spawned a host of unholy offspring". The reason this is fallacy is as follows... the author tries to get people to think that it is the use of the RSV that has led to theological error. The problem with this is that there have been instances of "unholy offspring" who have relied on the KJV! eg the Jehovah's Witnesses. So, using the author's own logic, since the Jehovah's Witnesses are an example of "unholy offspring", and further, that they used the KJV, therefore, according to the author's logic, the KJV it the source of their error and we need to blame the version of the Bible they used as being the source fo their error! (I am aware that the JWs now -- since 1961-- have their own translation of the Bible, eg the NWT, the point is that for many many years, when this cult first started, it used the KJV and sometimes the ASV and in fact, members of this cult will still use either of these when they go door to door.) However, the larger point here is that just because some people use a version of the Bible to support their heresy, it does not follow that the version of the bible is ITSELF responsible for their heresy, otherwise we would have to also blame the KJV since some cults use and have used this version of the bible as well.Rather it is the people themselves who are responsible, not the version of the Bible they use. To illustrate this further, I would ask that you name any cardinal doctrine of the Christian faith that you personally adhere to and compare your beliefs with what I believe. I would venture to say that our beliefs are fairly similar, even though I use a different version of the bible than you do..
Thirdly I would ask you: why do you prefer the KJV over the Geneva Bible? The Geneva came before it, it is based on the same manuscripts as the KJV is based on...so all of the arguments that KJV only folks use could be used to support the Geneva... indeed when the KJV first came along there were cries of protest at this "new" "modern" translation of 1611... it just couldn't be a good translation, they derided the character of the man who commissioned to have the work done in the first place, that he was a man of ill repute and was persecuting the people of God who disagreed with his doctrines concerning Lex Rex, and they impugned the character of those on the translation committee, just as the KJV only people have done with those on the translation committees for other versions. They argue that the doctrine of preservation means that since they had the Geneva translation, they did not need any other "newfangled" translations to come along and throw the people of God into confusion. Furthermore, the only reason the King James Bible ever became more popular than the Geneva Bible is because the King issued an edict forbidding the use of the Geneva, even though 50 years after the publication of the King James, the Geneva was still the preferred bible by the majority of people, both lay persons and scholars. "However, what finally decided the issue in favor of the King James Bible had little to do with the relative merits of the two (Geneva versus the King James) translations. After the death of King James, his son Charles I ascended to the throne. Charles appointed William Laud, who had been Bishop of London, to the see of Canterbury. One of Laud's first orders was to forbid the printing of the Geneva Bible in England to assure uniformity of Bibles. At first, this did not cause any difficulty because it was easy to procure copies from overseas. However, Laud issued an edict forbidding the importation of the Geneva Bible because it would cause economic hardship to British printers. The last printing of the Geneva Bible was done in Amsterdam in 1644." It is an irony of history that the popularity of the King James Bible was due to political and economic reasons as much as to the quality of the translation. However, there is one further irony that exists. Another name given to the King James Bible is the Authorized Version or "A.V." However, there is no record that any official authorization was ever given to the King James Version." (http://www.solagroup.org/articles/historyofthebible/hotb_0015.html)
Fourthly I would point out that a person could believe in the doctrine of the preservation of the word of God, and still deny that the KJV MUST be the only English Bible one uses or embodies that preserved word. In any case, the translators of the King James Version, in the preface to the 1611 (http://watch.pair.com/TR-8-kjv-revision.html) were themselves honest that theirs was but a translation, and that revisions ought to CONTINUE to be made. "the Translators’ humble and honest admission that all translations, including their own, are by their very nature imperfect and must, therefore, “be maturely considered and examined...that...if anything be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” The Translators took a dim view of those who protested revision of the English Bible, accusing them of having an evil eye and hindering the spiritual profit of the Church. These critics they likened to Sanballat and Tobiah who withstood the Jews who labored to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem—a very fitting analogy!" So the point here is that the translators of the very version of the Bible that KJV Onlyists exalt would not, themselves, have taken such a view! They realized that their effort was, while being an honest effort, was still just the product of sinful humans and was in no way equal to the inerracy and inspiration that is ascribed only to the original manuscripts.
Fifthly the author of the article states "They all present conflicting messages with the King James Version and even with each other... They omit many words, verses and passages of Scripture...." etc etc
But just because a version of the Bible conflicts with the KJV it does not follow that the other versions are "corrupt", maybe the KJV is is actually mistaken rather than the other version..... So the only thing that can be proven by saying that a given version is different than the KJV is that they are different from one another, that's it. You can't PRESUPPOSE that the KJV is THE standard, and then say that anything that differs from it is somehow corrupt. This is circular reasoning and is never valid. So the circle of reasoning looks like this:
the KJV is the standard
anything that differs from the KJV is corrupt
therefore the KJV is the standard..
this just isn't reasonable... and the circularity is evident...
Sixthly the author writes "They all cast doubt on the accuracy of the KJV and several fundamental doctrines taught in it, such as the virgin birth of Jesus Christ, His divinity, His miracles, His bodily ascension to heaven and His second coming."
But this just isn't true. I use versions of the bible other than the KJV and I believe that versions like the NASB or the ESV clearly teach the virgin birth, that Christ was truly God and truly man, that He performed many great miracles, that He ascended bodily into heaven, that He will return again one day to judge the world. Secondly, as mentioned earlier, you could have found and could still find people who denied any one of these doctrines and yet, they used the KJV! So you simply cannot blame the version of the Bible that people use as being the source or the cause of why some people have heretical beliefs. You will find people that have heretical beliefs who use all sorts of biblical translations, including the KJV. In fact, in the many atheists I have debated, they use the KJV more than any other versions.
Next, the author states "They all disagree on major doctrinal points with other early European versions of the Bible which triggered the great Protestant Reformation and for which tens of thousands of true believers died during the dark ages."
Really? I would have to see proof for this assertion, and there just isn't any forthcoming. Its just an assertion, nothing more. Furthermore, again the author engages in a subtle tactic, he wants you to associate in your mind an emotional response, that to deny the KJV is tantamount to denying the validity of the deaths of many martyrs. However, I challenge you find one single martyr who died defending the thesis that the KJV is THE only true version of the Bible. You won't. They died for many other noble reasons, and to try and take advantage of the value and meaning of their deaths in order to defend an idea that they themselves would not have agreed to is cheap as well as misleading, and taints their memory and the sacrifice they made.
Next he says "-They are warmly welcomed by the Roman Catholic Church which has long considered the King James Bible its number one enemy."
Again, this just isn't true. The Roman Catholics have only certain bibles that have the official imprimatur, and I could list the versions that they use, but notice this: no Roman Catholic would be "allowed" to use any bible that does not contain the Apocrypha. Now, since most of the newer English translations of the Bible do not contain the Apocrypha, the author's contention that the new versions are "warmly welcomed by the Roman catholic Church" is an outright falsehood. One Roman Catholic site discussing this issue points out that:
"Bible translations developed for Catholic use are complete Bibles. This means that they contain the entire canonical text identified by Pope Damasus and the Synod of Rome (382) and the local Councils of Hippo (393) and Carthage (397), contained in St. Jerome's Latin Vulgate translation (420), and decreed infallibly by the Ecumenical Council of Trent (1570). This canonical text contains the same 27 NT Testament books which Protestant versions contain, but 46 Old Testament books, instead of 39. These 7 books, and parts of 2 others, are called Deuterocanonical by Catholics (2nd canon) and Apocrypha (false writings) by Protestants, who dropped them at the time of the Reformation. The Deuterocanonical texts are Tobias (Tobit), Judith, Baruch, Ecclesiasticus (Sirach), Wisdom, First and Second Maccabees and parts of Esther and Daniel. Some Protestant Bibles include the "Apocrypha" as pious reading."
Furthermore the following quotation is from a Roman Catholic priest PRAISING the King James Version!
"a Roman Catholic priest, ... in 1792.... paid tribute to the (King James) Bible:
"The highest eulogiums have been made on the translation of James the First, both by our own writers and by foreigners. And, indeed, if accuracy, fidelity, and the strictest attention to the letter of the text, be supposed to constitute the qualities of an excellent version, this of all versions, must, in general, be accounted the most excellent. Every sentence, every work, every syllable, every letter and point, seem to have been weighed with the nicest exactitude; and expressed, either in the text, or margin, with the greatest precision." (http://www.av1611.org/kjv/kjvhist.html)
So by using the author's own logic, since a Roman Catholic "warmly embraced" the King James Version, it ought to therefore be discounted as not worthy of our attention!!
Next, the author quotes the Westminster Confession: "Concerning Providential Preservation the Westminster Confession of Faith ( 17th century ) says this on page 23: " The Old Testament in Hebrew and the New Testament in Greek, being immediately inspired by God and by His singular care and providence kept pure in all ages, are therefore authentical, so as in all controversies of religion the Church is finally to appeal unto them." But the problem here is that this document teaches specifically against his contention that the KJV is the ONLY version of the word of God we can trust! Nowhere does the Confession state that only the KJV must be used. It simply says that it was the Hebrew and Greek original manuscripts that were divinely inspired by God! NOT the translations of those manuscripts. So this quotation completely undercuts the author's entire thesis.
Next, while I could go on through this article, that seems counter productive since many of his foundational theses are untrue, thus the edifice he builds on this unstable foundation falls... the author asks "These discoveries are disturbing to say the least and should cause true believers to ask: - Is all this true, are these allegations justified?"
As I believer, I asked, and I found his allegations to be, in many cases, untrue eg unjustified. . So when he asks "If so, what spirit is behind the deception and confusion caused by the modern translations?" I would have to say that the confusion is an unnecessary one that he is creating out of whole cloth, and that the fact that there is confusion is NOT due simply and only to the use of other English translations because of the simple fact that there was confusion in the church long before the KJV itself ever came along, let alone the other English translations, and that the confusion (heresy etc) persisted even when the KJV was at the height of it's popularity, in other words even when the most widely used bible was the KJV, this in and of itself did not stop the fact that heresy and confusion were also present. In other words, its not the version of the Bible that one uses which creates this confusion., that is a diversionary tactic used by people who no doubt are well meaning in their desire to see the people of God unified doctrinally. Rather the reason there is confusion and heresy in the church is because people are sinners, and the evil one seeks to kill and destroy, and he is doing his job well as is evidenced by the people who want to try and divide Christians over which version of the Bible they use!
Next I would ask "which version of the KJV do you use? The 1611? 1613? 1616? 1617? 1629? 1638? 1762? 1769? "F.H.A. Scrivener’s volume, The Authorized Edition of the English Bible (1611): Its Subsequent Reprints and Modern Representatives" documents hundreds of textual revisions of the original 1611 King James Version. Scrivener’s Appendix A titled “Wrong readings of the Bible of 1611 amended in later editions” reveals that a surprising number of the revisions were not of misspellings or typos but correction of translation errors. In other words, wrong readings which tainted the interpretation of verses. Even D.A. Waite admitted there have been “136 substantial changes that were different words...136 changes of substance” between the original 1611 KJV and the present day (Old Scofield) KJV. (Defending the King James Bible, p. 244) " (ibid) Here are some examples of how the King James has changed over the years:
1611 KING JAMES VERSION LATER EDITIONS OF KJV
Gen. xxxix. 16 her lord his lord, 1638
Lev. 26:40 confess the iniquity of their fathers (the iniquities, 1613) confess their iniquity and the iniquity of their fathers (1616)
Jer. 38:16 So the king sware So Zedekiah the king sware
I Kings 11:5 Amorites (Ammorites 1612) Ammonites, 1629
II Kings 11:10 the Temple the temple of the Lord, 1638
2 Chron. iii. 10 most holy place most holy house, 1629,
2 Chron. xxxii. 5 prepared Millo repaired Millo, 1616, 1617
Ezra ii. 22 The children of Netophah The men of Netophah, 1638
Job xxxix. 30 there is he there is she, 1616, 16171
Psalm ii. 6 & marg. Sion Zion, 16382. Cf. Ps. lxix. 35
Psalm lxv. 1 Sion Zion, Amer. 1867 only. See below, note 2
Psalm lxix. 32 seek good seek God, 1617
Psalm lxix. 35 Sion Zion, 1761.Cf. p. 165 note 2
Ezek. i. 17 returned / Bishops Bible turned, 1769. Cf. vers. 9, 12
Ezek. iii.11 thy people the children of thy people, 1638
Ezek. xxiv. 7 poured it poured it not, 1613
Ezek. xlvi. 23 a new building a row of building, 1638
Dan. xii. 13 in the lot in thy lot, 1638
Zech. vii. 7 of the plain and the plain, 1638
Matt. vi. 3 thy right doeth thy right hand doeth, 1613 (not 1616, 1617), 1629, 1630
Matt. xxvi. 75 the words of Jesus the word of Jesus, 1762
Luke i. 3 understanding of things understanding of all things, 1629
Luke xi. 3 his sister his sisters, 1629
John vii. 16 Jesus answered them, Jesus answered them, and said, 1634, 1638
John xv. 20 than the Lord (lord 1629-1743) than his lord, 1762
Acts. xxiv. 24 which was a Jew which was a Jewess, 1629. Cf. ch. xvi. 1
1 Cor. xii. 28 helps in governments helps, governments, 1629
2 Cor. xi. 32 the city the city of the Damascenes, 1629
Eph. vi. 24 sincerity sincerity, Amen, 1616 (not 1617, 1629 C.)
2 Thess. ii. 14 the Lord Jesus Christ our Lord Jesus Christ, 1629
1 Tim. i. 4 edifying godly edifying, 1638 (Tynd.-Bps’)
2 Tim. iv. 13 bring with thee bring with thee, and the books, 1616, 1617, 1629 C. & L., 1630.
1 John v. 12 hath not the Son1 hath not the Son of God, 1629 C. (not 1629 L., 1630), 16382.
Heb. x. 23 faith hope.
So though I realize that neither of us is likely going to change our minds, I want you to at least know WHY it is that I believe as I do... I have looked at the KJV only arguments carefully, read numerous books both pro and con KJV onlyism, and I have concluded that the KJV Only doctrine is actually a man made doctrine, a tradition of men, a doctrine which one will not find in the pages of Scripture itself. Therefore, since I am committed to believe the bible and only what the bible teaches, and not man made traditions, even if those traditions be well meaning, I have to reject KJV onlyism, and above are some of the reasons why......
blessings,
ken
