Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible

From Textus Receptus

---

Revision as of 07:00, 10 February 2010

In this Response to Mr. Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, I would like to follow a different order of topics and address a couple of issues he brings up regarding the King James Bible. Lord willing, we will then address the supremely important doctrine of the preservation of Scripture; Where was the inerrant word of God before 1611?; and then a summation of the principal arguments and some closing thoughts.

But first - On page 103 of his book, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"

Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".

I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.

This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.

Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.

"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."

Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible. "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."

"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .

Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!

"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.

Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)

So later on, when Mr. Norris addresses the textual differences that separate the King James Bible readings from most modern versions, and he tries to minimize them to the point of prevarication, he would do well to consider that not everyone on the other side of this issue is as unconcerned and conciliatory about them as he is.

Mr. Norris begins his personal critique of the King James Bible by pointing out what he considers to be various mistranslations and inconsistencies. On page 302 Mr. Norris asks: "Why did the KJV translators translate the same Hebrew word qaath as "pelican" in Leviticus 11:18, Deut. 14:17, and Psalm 102:6 but as "cormorant" at Isaiah 34:11 and Zephaniah 2:14?"

Mr. Norris and anyone else who has a minimum amount of understanding regarding the Hebrew language, should know that one Hebrew word can have an astounding array of very different meanings.

We could also ask: Why do the NASB and the NIV translate the same Hebrew word #47 ab-beer as "angels, bulls, mighty men, stouthearted, stallions, strong ones, steeds, and stubborn minded"?

The NASB has translated the same Hebrew word as "dragon, monster, sea monster, and serpent."

The NASB, NIV have translated the same Greek word as both "eagle" and "vulture."

The NIV has translated the same Hebrew word as "jackals" and "foxes".

The NKJV has translated the same Hebrew word as both "bittern" (a type of bird - Zephaniah 2:14) and as "porcupine" (Isaiah 14:23); the same word as both "caterillar" and "grasshopper", the same word as "scorpions" and "scourges", the same word as both "jackals" and "foxes", and the same word as "turquoise" and "emerald".

In fact, both the NASB and the NIV have translated the same Hebrew word yom, which usually means "day" as: "afternoon, battle, birthday, daylight, each, entire, eternity, fate, first, forever, future, holiday, later, length, live, long, now, older, once, period, perpetually, recently, reigns, ripe age, short-lived, so long, survived, time, usual, very old, when, whenever, while, yesterday, yearly, and years."!

There is a great deal of similarity between a pelican and a cormorant; both are fish eating birds with a large pouch.

Webster's dictionary 1999 - Cormorant - any of various typically dark-plummaged diving seabirds of worldwide distribution, having a long neck and a throat pouch for holding fish.

Pelican - any of several large, web-footed birds having an expandable throat pouch.

Not only does the King James Bible translate this single Hebrew word as both "pelican" and as "cormorant" but so also do Webster's 1833 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Jewish translation, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Let's take a look at one of the verses Mr. Norris mentions here - Isaiah 34:11. Remember, all these translators went to seminary and learned "the original Hebrew and Greek languages".

Isaiah 34:11 "But the CORMORANT and the BITTERN shall possess it."

King James Bible, Webster's 1833, KJV 21st Century, 1936 Jewish translation Hebrew Publishing Company, Third Millenium Bible - CORMORANT - BITTERN ASV 1901, NKJV 1982 - PELICAN - PORCUPINE

NASB - PELICAN - HEDGEHOG

RSV 1952 - HAWK - BITTERN

NRSV 1989 - HAWK - HEDGEHOG

ESV 2001 - HAWK - PORCUPINE

Darby - PELICAN - BITTERN

Douay - BITTERN - ERICIUS

NIV - DESERT OWL - SCREECH OWL

The MESSAGE - VULTURES - SKUNKS

Now, I will admit that Zoology is not my strongest subject, but I am reasonably certain there is a difference between a bittern (a bird of the heron family) and a procupine, a hedgehog or a skunk.

So, which of all these would Mr. Norris like to make his Final Authority? Oh, wait a minute. I almost forgot. His view is that no translation is inspired or inerrant, so we must go to "the original Hebrew". But didn't all these scholars do the very thing Mr. Norris suggests - go to the Hebrew?

Let's try another one or two and see if we can do any better, shall we?

How about Exodus 26:14

"Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins".

The NKJV, Geneva, Darby,Young's, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the King James Bible - Badger's skins.

The NASB says the covering would be "of PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "SEA COWS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS".

While wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years, badger's skins might be troublesome to get, but how many "porpoises" (NASB) or "sea cows" (NIV) do you think they could have scrounged up?

Let's go to the original Hebrew again and see what we can come up with in Zechariah 13:5.

"But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; FOR MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP CATTLE FROM MY YOUTH."

Agreeing with the KJB are the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, KJV 21st Century, Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, the 1936 Jewish translation,and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909.

NIV - "I am a farmer; THE LAND HAS BEEN MY LIVELIHOOD SINCE MY YOUTH."

NASB - "I am a tiller of the ground, FOR A MAN SOLD ME AS A SLAVE IN MY YOUTH."

Lamsa translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "AND A MAN MADE ME ZEALOUS TO PROPHESY from my youth."

New English Bible - "I AM A TILLER OF THE SOIL WHO HAS BEEN SCHOOLED IN LUST from boyhood."

Douay version 1950 - "ADAM IS MY EXAMPLE from my youth."

Aren't you glad that we can follow the advice of men like James White and compare the various versions so we can get a better understanding of the true meaning of the text?

Let's try just one more for now and see if we can do any better.

Job 39:13 "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"

So read the King James Bible as well as the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition (Diste las hermosas alas al pavo real, o alas y plumas al avestruz?), the Italian Diodati, Geneva Bible, Webster's translation, KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible.

Now for a list of various translations, all of which were done by men who went to "the original Hebrew language texts".

NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"

NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."

NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."

Young's: "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."

NRSV: "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."

Lamsa's: "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY, THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."

LXX: "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."

New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."

Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"

And finally the Message says: "The ostrich flaps her wings FUTILY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!"

"Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" Judges 21:25

External Link

• Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible by Will Kinney