This is a continuation of the King James Only series. Part1 links here
What is the King James Bible
What do we mean by King James Bible? Does the inerrant part of the bible include bracketing information like chapter titles and conclusions. For example the ending in 1611 for Hebrews, "Written to the Hebrewes, from Italy, by Timothie" is this inerrant, that is can I be sure that Timothy wrote Hebrews and did so from Italy?
By the King James Bible I simply mean the actual TEXT of the King James Bible is the complete, inspired, preserved, infallible and 100% true words of God. I do not defend the Prefatory remarks, though some of them are quite good.
What is the status of translator notes and other more literal readings within the KJV?
Sometimes they are of value and other times not. They are not inspired. The so called “more literal readings” are not always the best means of communicating or translating God’s words. ALL modern versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV, NKJV are far less literal than is the King James Bible, so it is a little silly to bring this up as some kind of objection to the accuracy or inerrancy of the King James Bible. It is the TEXT alone that we defend as the inspired and inerrant words of God. We believe God Himself guided the translators as to the correct TEXTS and meanings of those texts.
Is there a single King James which is inspired and inerrant or are there multiple ones? If a single 1611, 1769; Oxford, cambridge; with Apocrypha (pre 1826) or without (post 1826) etc...
Here you are confusing two very different things. One is the alleged “various revisions of the King James Bible” with “printing errors” and stylistic changes. There has never been a revision of the King James Bible. The real issue of the Printing Errors Ploy that the “No bible is the inerrant words of God” side brings up. You will find these objections addressed in the following article.
What is the status of the King James version Apocrypha?
Apocrypha never was the inspired words of God. The King James translators themselves did not consider them inspired. It is more than a little inconsistent and hypocritical for the modern versionists to even bring up this criticism. Why? See the following article about Why the 1611 KJB and other bible versions included the Apocrypha (article with additional information)
What is that status of the various Greek and Hebrew manuscripts (like the Bomberg Hebrew, Stephanus Textus Receptus...) – note for reader the Bomberg, Stephanus, Clementine Vulgate and LXX were the main source text.
When you say, “The Old Testament is based solely on the Hebrew Masoretic texts, in contrast to the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman CSB and other modern versions that frequently reject the Hebrew readings. “ What exactly do you mean that the NASB is less literal then the KJV? It would seem to me that something like Jay Green's (MT/TR interlinear) is much more literal than the KJV on the same underlying texts?
I mean exactly what I said. The KJB is far more literal than the NASB and the others I mentioned, but again, a strict literalness is not always a good thing.
OK let example on that. Take a classic example like Isaiah 7:14. The Masoretic Text does not say "virgin" here, that comes from Matthew and the LXX. Why is it acceptable for the KJV to diverge from the Hebrew here?
I'm not familiar with any. I presume you meant in English and not Christian/Jewish. Can you name an Jewish translation which uses virgin?
These 3 online Jewish translations all have "virgin" in Isaiah 7:14 and the clincher is the N.T. where the verse is quoted in Matthew 1:23 "Behold a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us."
Here is one online - BayithaMashiyach -- NASB with name changes
And another Jewish translation online - Word of Yah -- ASV with name changes
The word almah is only used 7 times in the Old Testament. It is translated 4 times as virgin in the KJB and 3 as maid. A maid or maiden was a young, unmarried virgin. See Exodus 2:8. The Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 Jewish translation has a "young woman" (who in Jewish culture were assumed to be virgins), but has translated the same word as "virgin" in Genesis 24:43 and in Song of Solomon 1:3 and 6:8.
I have one more question. The KJV was noted for replacing places in the Hebrew that are repetitive with variation. In other words the KJV translators altered structure of the Hebrew. You have been attacking modern versions for being too lose with the Hebrew. How would you respond?
Give some examples, and I will show you that the Jewish translators themselves do this very thing. However the nasb, niv, rsv, esv, Holman stuff clearly reject entire Hebrew readings. The KJB does not.
Genesis 32:20 and the repetition of face. The KJV notes themselves they are dropping the last face and breaking with the Hebrew; and while they don't say why it is pretty clear that you are allowed more repetition in Hebrew than in English.
20And say ye moreover, Behold, thy servant Jacob is behind us. For he said, I will appease him with the present that goeth before me, and afterward I will see his face; peradventure he will accept of me*.
* = of me: Heb. my face
The literal "face" is redundant in this case since it has already been mentioned. ALL bible versions and translations do stuff like this. Even 3 Jewish versions like the Jewish Pub. Society 1917, the Complete Jewish Bible, and the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936 all read exactly like the KJB here. So too do the RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NKJV and Holman.
Arguments for the uniqueness of the KJV
When you say , “So is it OK for you to believe that there was no perfect Bible before 1611 but not for me to agree with you?” What's outlandish is the claim of particularity. That this particular bible is in some way so far uniquely better.
Well, it may well seem outlandish to you because you do not believe such a things exists as a complete, inspired and infallible Bible. To me it makes perfect sense since I understand God's words as teaching that He would preserve His words in a tangible Book. I believe in this Book; you do not.
The English bibles before the KJB were generally quite good. They were not the perfect words of God, but quite good. You do not need to have a complete and perfect bible to get saved or to learn many good things about God, Christ and the history of redemption. Those bibles contained much of God's words, but they were not perfect.
Does that apply to today's bibles? Are they pretty good but not ideal?
Yes, basically, but I believe the modern versions like the NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman and NKJV are actually getting worse in many ways rather than better than even versions like Coverdale, Tyndale, Geneva and Bishops' bibles.
Do you believe there were supernatural resources. If so what was the mechanism and purpose of their interaction?
Other than the hand of the sovereign God, No.
So to make it clear. Do you believe:
1) The translators for the KJV had assistance from God in their selection of alternatives?
2) The translators for the KJV had actual revelation?
Yes, God guided their selections. That is what I believe. God led them to both the correct texts and the correct translations of those texts. That is what I believe. You do not have to accept this.
Referring to the thesis, "The King James Bible as being the only complete, inspired and inerrant words of God in Bible form", what we do we mean exactly by "only"?
Good question. We do not mean that ONLY those who read the King James Bible are saved. God can and does use any bible version out there no matter how poorly translated or no matter how much is missing. The gospel of salvation through the shed blood of the Lamb of God is still found in them all and God can use them to bring His people to faith in the Saviour. God can use a simple bible tract, a good hymn, the NIV, NASB, RSV, any Catholic version, the Jehovah Witness version or the Cabbage Patch version is He wishes. The gospel is still found in them all. However that does not make them the complete and inerrant words of God. They are not.
You said in your essay, "The King James Bible alone is without proven error, and this in spite of intense opposition and criticism from the Bible correctors and modern scholarship". We may have to swing back to this but would constitute a proven error? As far as I can tell you are rejecting the authority of the Greek over the KJV. Even in theory how would one prove an error?
Some errors are easy to prove. Can God be deceived? The nasb says He was. That is an error.
You had written in your essay, "The King James Bible is always a true witness and never lies or perverts sound doctrine. This is in contrast to all modern English versions that do pervert sound doctrine in numerous verses and prove themselves to be false witnesses to the truth of God." I don't quite follow how you would know this one way or the other. You believe in scripture as the source of doctrine. So "sound doctrine" comes from scripture. In particular base text plus interpretation yields a collection of doctrines. Obviously a different base text could result in a collection of different doctrine, but I'm not sure how you can call one sound and the other unsound. To determine soundness you would need a judge over and above the base text (the bible). What is that judge?
I.E. let say I have
Bible 1 which leads to the doctrine that salvation is from eating duck food
Bible 2 which leads to the doctrine that salvation is from playing jacks
How do I determine whether bible 1 or bible 2 is more sound?
False doctrine is determined by the consistent teaching of the Bible itself. If something clearly contradicts other parts of the Bible, then it is false. Did you read the article? I gave several examples (link to article mentioned)
For an article showing that the true Historic Confessional position about the inerrancy of the Bible supports the King James Bible view, rather than the recent position of "the originals only". See: link
The confessions relate directly to the Bible and the words of God; not doctrines of the Catholic church.
Yes but why not? Why couldn't you apply the same spirit of argument more broadly?
You are the one trying to come up with an argument here that has nothing to do with what I was talking about. I'm strictly talking about what the words of God are, not what they might mean as interpreted by any number of different groups or organizations.
God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away. He either did this and we can know where they are found today, or He lied and He lost some of them, and we can never be sure if what we are reading are the true words of God or not.
Link to part3 of this series.