He is saying we can’t be sure regarding salvation unless we produce the KJV.

“God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more than one language”  [iv]

He thinks the language God chose is KJ English. Even the KJV will not support this claim. Think about these quotes and you will realise their serious implications. Salvation becomes intrinsically linked to a language and a Bible version. I contend the NT does not teach salvation rests on a language or translation, but on Christ's atonement, death and resurrection (Jn.3:16-17 Rom.10:9). There will be many in Heaven who never read the KJV or even spoke English.

“After this I beheld, and, lo, a great multitude, which no man could number, of all nations, and kindred's, and people, and tongues, stood before the throne, and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, and palms in their hands". Rev.7:9 (cp.5:9).

This questions the whole argument. 75% of all Bible-believing Christians live in the non-Western World. The heavenly vision speaks of millions from all nations and languages who simply accepted the Gospel message. Indeed, all nations shall worship before Him (Ps.22:27,28  72:11,17  96:1,3,10). Concerning salvation, Paul never mentions dialects or languages. Read the great salvation chapters of Romans and Galatians three and four. People become Christian’s when they receive Christ as their Saviour and the Holy Spirit, enters their heart (Gal.3.1-3 Rom.8:9). Neither the Apostles, nor Early Church Fathers suggest converts must learn another language. In fact, right from the beginning of the Church, the Gospel was proclaimed in various languages and dialects. God gave the gift of tongues as a sign He was moving from the single nation Israel. An indication the message was for all tongues.

“Behold, are not all these which speak Galileans? And how hear we every man in our own tongue, wherein we were born? Parthians, and Medes, and Elamites, and the dwellers in Mesopotamia, and in Judea, and Cappadocia, in Pontus, and Asia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia, in Egypt, and in the parts of Libya about Cyrene, and strangers of Rome, Jews and proselytes, Cretes and Arabians, we do hear them speak in our tongues the wonderful works of God” Acts 2:7b-11 (See also Ac.10:34-35, 17:26-30 22:2 Mk.16:15 1 Pe.1:1-2).

If God only provides "His words" in one language, then that language is vital. And none can be sure about salvation (or any doctrine) unless they learn that language to read “His words”. This adds works to the Gospel of grace. It demands the convert not only repent and believe the Gospel, but to know God’s Word, they must learn Elizabethan English. This is foreign to the Gospel "once delivered unto the saints" (Eph.2:8-9). To require this of converts is a departure from truth and makes the KJ radicals characteristic to a cult. It also implies God is racist and discriminatory. God’s promise to Abraham was that all the nations would be blessed through faith (Gal.3:8).

The KJV is read by English speakers, but not all. Millions don’t have a firm grasp of English to use it. There are millions of functionally illiterate people even in the USA and millions worldwide illiterate in English and even their own language, with no possibility to learn English. There's at least 380 million who speak a language with no Scripture. 250 million don't have Scripture or any translation.

Yet God can communicate with illiterate (or fluent) in their own language (1 Cor.12:13-26 Gal.3:28). “Understanding your word brings light to the minds of ordinary people” [Psa.119.130]. Acts 2:7-11 refers to those who heard the Gospel. As “Faith comes by hearing,” so the Bible was meant to be clearly heard and easily read. But if God only communicates in a foreign KJ language or ambiguously then millions have no show of understanding (1 Cor.14:6-9). This suggest God was racist or discriminatory for Israel first and then for England.

3. A Misguided Faith

An illustration: If Lutherans were to claim Luther’s German translation of 1522 is 'God’s Word' and “ALL others” are “Satanic”. Then obviously we must learn German to read the only correct Bible. And there become two classes of people in the Church – learned intellectuals [who read and speak German] and those who can't [but use “Satanic counterfeits”]. A recipe for division and an exercise in misguided faith.

This effectively removes the focal point of faith in God’s Word, to faith in a human translation. Faith in a translation is different from faith in God. Biblical faith is - trusting God and the message of His Word. Biblical faith is not - trusting human translations whatever their words, simply because translations are the work of men who make mistakes. I have faith in God's Word but translation mistakes [in KJV or NIV or whatever] don't rob me of my faith in God. If we find an error in a version, we don't throw away our Bible and wonder if we have eternal life.

4. A Perfect Language?

Muslims believe the Qur’an can only be correctly read and studied in Arabic. Muslims can only receive blessing by reciting the Qur'an in Arabic, even if they don't understand it.  So the radicals believe English of the KJV is, as they say, “God’s chosen perfect language”. Apparently Israel, Adam, Jesus and the angels missed out.

While English has a richness and variety its not ‘perfect’. No language on earth is perfect; all are governed by human and cultural influence. Human language is a social phenomenon bound to time and culture. The Word of God is conveyed in the words of men, so the Scriptures are both human and divine. The expression ‘word of God’ is a Biblical concept [originating before 1611] it conveys God’s self-communication. Yet the words of the Bible are the words of humans about the word of God. If we hold to Biblical inerrancy we should realise truth has come to us through fallible means. And Christians preach and teach truth in human words, which are fallible. If one believed that at every point only perfect words could convey truth, one could not preach or witness in any manner except to quote Scripture from its original manuscripts [which we don't possess]. When we admit truth may come to us in imperfect words, we in no wise indicate the original manuscripts were also imperfect. All Bible versions convey truth only in imperfect languages of men and all language is somewhat inadequate to the reality to which it points.

English became a global language because it's flexible. As Greek for 3,000 years underwent many changes, so English continues to evolve and change to suit it's own advances. English of the Colonial era is not modern English. Why can't God use modem English? Many countries have their own form of English because language is a cultural expression. And what might be a state of excellence for some, can be a linguistical obstacle course for others. So their mother tongue is vital and an understandable translation. For millions the most effective means of communication is their mother tongue. The Church has long realised that communicating the gospel is critical to her existence. Communication must be clear and accurate for understanding. So no translation can ever be considered final because language and words change over time.  Contrary to this, King James defenders write,

“God has never promised, nor is obliged, to provide his words in more than one language” “God chose ONE language in which to reach the world" Just as "Anyone desiring the word of God would have to convert to Judaism"

Now why would God select a grandiose sounding English excluding modern English or other languages? He didn't, note Acts 10:35 "…but in every nation he that feareth Him and live good lives are acceptable to Him."

The Bible has been translated into over 1,200 languages (more than any book). Praise God millions have the Bible in their modern tongue. Do they have a weak corrupt faith without the KJV? Or find it impossible to obey, trust and know God? No! Those who confine Scripture to a limited 1611 edition doubt the power of God’s Word and seek to restrict it, contrary to 2 Tim.2.9 “the word of God is not bound”. (KJV)

If God chose one language what about Hebrew? Was it the original God-given language for man? Were Gentile languages given as an act of divine judgment? What about Aramaic or Greek? Jesus used Aramaic, not the Hebrew of the nation of Israel. The Aramaic was not ideally equipped for the conveyance of God’s revelation in Christ; comparatively few readers outside the nation Israel used it. God purposed to use the people of Israel as instruments to spread Christianity, yet their own language was not suitable for the task. In His providential overruling He gave to the devout Hebrew heart a Greek tongue in order to make the message intelligible to the world. He can use any language!

God’s plan was that, “whoever believes in him should not perish” Jn.3:15,16 (Jn.4:13 Acts 2:21, 10:43 Rom.9:33  10:13  1 Jn.3:6 3:9  4:15  5:1  Rev.20:15). God is “willing…that all should come to repentance” (2 Pe.3:9). God desires all “men to be saved, and to come unto the knowledge of the truth” (1 Tim.2:7).

Paul spoke various languages (1 Cor.14.18) and evangelised at Syria, Cilicia, Cappadocia, Galatia, Asia, Thrace, Macedonia and Rome. He realised people could not acknowledge the truth of God and continue in the faith if the message was not natural, clear, simple and unambiguous.  He wrote, “For we do not write you anything you cannot read or understand.” He desired those that ‘understood in part, would come to understand fully’ [2 Cor.1:13-14]. His desire was clarity and understanding to those who read his words and their walk of faith depended on it.

It's absurd to think God intended to lock-up "His Words" in an English publication [KJV 1611]. Why would God conceal this from Paul, send no prophet to warn the Church and then in 1611 initiate this secret plan for the rest of the church age? Paul declared the whole counsel of God (Ac.20.27) yet rejects any revelation not found in Christ (Col.2.2-8 Gal.1:6-12). Why would God send missionaries to lost souls in foreign countries but after 1611 restrict His Word and reject the new discoveries that clarify His Word to us? The simple answer is ‘He has not’!  There is no divine stamp from heaven on the KJV as something other versions are not.

5. Translators Satanic?

The KJ radicals insist, “anyone who uses any OTHER bible has a corrupt bible”  [v] and translators are ‘arrogant bible correctors’ doing Satan's work. Translators are part of “the most vicious and malicious attempted assassination of the word of God ever seen on plant earth”. They are, “the most dangerous enemy of the word of God”  [vi] Think about those claims. Has wickedness triumphed over God’s Word? No! God’s Word is “living and powerful” (Heb.4.12) because the Holy Spirit is The Translator (Jn.16:13-15). Christ said,

“It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life” (Jn.6:63).

These words contain a caution how hearers understand Christ’s words in the literal sense (eg., as though His 'body' were the communion Bread). His words are to be spiritually understood because the life they promise is of a spiritual nature. These words of life are so powerful they can’t be trapped in time or language. God’s Word is alive today as it was to Augustine, Wyclif or Luther, because we are the recipients of a Divine Revelation not a divine translation. The Holy Spirit illuminates as we read, He bears witness with our spirit to the truth of what we read. Without His work Scripture is dead letter (1 Cor.2:14 2 Cor.3:6 Eph.6:17). So the proper balance is to acknowledge The Translator (God the Holy Spirit), the writing, the writer and the reader.

 The Bible has always been a missionary book, it’s not a 'White-Man’s Bible’. God has given His Church the responsibility to communicate the gospel. But for years the 'church' lost it’s way. To date, there are only 429 full Bibles translated into other languages. The more Bible translations, the more people come to faith in Christ and more Christians grow and mature in their faith. But translators have problems. Firstly, they are not perfect. They are trained for the task and must study and use the best resources available while learning difficult languages. So no translation can be infallibly correct unless the Holy Spirit guide with the same degree of inspiration as the original Bible writers. Secondly, we don’t have the original autographs and just as well or we would make idols of them. And thirdly, human languages are not perfect. There are always cross-purposes in understanding, words change and become obsolete, so the need for revisions and new translations.

The KJ sect would withhold Scripture from millions of needy souls, by insisting translating is corrupting Scripture. This would steal what belongs to the whole Church. God has given His Word for all His people of every nation and generation. Christ commanded His disciples to take the Gospel to the ends of the earth, "Go ye therefore, and teach ALL NATIONS" (Mtt.28). Since the original tongues (and English) aren’t known to all God's people (who have right and interest in Scripture) the Scriptures MUST be translated into the languages of every nation. Translating Scripture and communicating the Gospel is all part of the Great Commission. The Latin, Coptic and Syriac versions all are evidence of early translating.

 The level of understanding the Bible will vary with the reader’s cultural and educational background. Those with a limited comprehension of English require their language translation. Through Scripture we come to know God’s will as He conveys His good Word to us. It’s a Word of transformation and there can be nothing more important than to hear God’s Word clearly and accurately and respond to His voice.  Only by understanding God’s Word can His Word change our lives. If what we read (or hear) is confusing, obscure or incomprehensible our “mind is unfruitful”. Paul says,

“…except ye utter by the tongue words easy to be understood, how shall it be known what is spoken? for ye shall speak into the air. There are, it may be, so many kinds of voices in the world, and none of them is without signification. Therefore if I know not the meaning of the voice, I shall be unto him that speaketh a barbarian, and he that speaketh shall be a barbarian unto me...” (1 Cor.14.9-11).

The aim of translators is to increase the understanding of Scripture and accurately and clearly communicate God’s Word into common speech. They often record and testify to what they believe is Divine guidance and protection. KJ radicals have called translators “deceitful… dishonest…lovers of money…evil…bible correctors”. Yet translators have often been called ‘heretics’ and persecuted throughout history. There has always been those who have endeavoured to restrict the influence and availability of God’s Word. The Samaritians only accepted the Pentateuch as canonical and authoritative, Marcion only accepted his own version of Luke and ten Pauline epistles. King Henry 8th wanted a single standardised edition, so he passed a law for all copies of Tyndale’s, Matthews and other translations be destroyed. When Tyndale’s was published it was called “crafty, false and untrue” and forbidden to be “kept and used in the land”. Many copies were burned.  [vii]

Jerome’s dictum was that ‘ignorance of the Scriptures is ignorance of Christ’. Yet some regarded him as an ‘enemy of the faith’, because he revised the old Latin version. His new version [Vulgate] was badly received because the older version was held in respect. Jerome attempted to relieve the text of errors that had crept into it. In the course of time the worth of his labours was recognised.

And then men went to the other extreme, they made the Vulgate the standard text of the NT from the original tongues, notwithstanding that it was only a Latin translation from the original tongues. For years the Latin Vulgate was the only version officially recognised [or authorised] by the Roman Catholic Church. They believed it was inspired and without error. Any translating into the common tongue of any language was considered corrupting Scripture. So the Papists wickedly withheld Scripture from people and translators were martyred and persecuted as heretics.

Even after this view changed, for years, Catholicism would not translate from any other text than the Vulgate. This high view of the Vulgate was based on its long ecclesiastical usage, NOT dictated by a judgment in matters of scholarly criticism. So for years “sellers of the Word” were cursed from the alters of churches and excommunicated. Bonfires of Bibles blazed. Men were flung into dungeons as the Roman Church attempted to control the disputation of books. The KJ debate is all about long ecclesiastical usage. Any version that’s been around a long time and found it’s way into the writings and faith of the churches is hard to break with. Even when it becomes out of date. Luther faced a similar problem. The RCC had their “Index Librorum Prohibitorum” (Index of Forbidden Books) as radicals have their list of 'evil versions'.

John Wickliffe translated the Bible into English. The zeal of the bishops to suppress the Scriptures promoted its sale, with anger bishops even dug-up and burnt his bones. The Lollards [Wyclif’s followers] helped spread this Bible and many were martyred. The bishops would fasten about their necks scraps of this version [found in their possession] and burn them alive. The Priests, in church services in that day would only read the Bible in Latin.  After the services (without the authority of the Priests) the ‘Lollards’ or ‘babblers’ (as called) read the English Bible to people (which annoyed Priests and bishops).

John Hus (1380-1415) was burnt at the stake in 1915. The church believed he had committed heresy. He believed everyone should be allowed to read the bible in their own language. The fire was kindled with the pages of the forbidden bible of John Wycliffe.

William Tyndale risked his life to translate the Scriptures. He fled to Germany and printed it there and had it smuggled into England. The bishops called it a false erroneous translation and “full of heresies”; he died as a martyr in 1538. Some were martyred for no other reason than reading it and the Priests urged men to “burn those dangerous books”. In fact, a huge fire in St Paul’s churchyard was arranged for that task (1525). Likewise Thomas Cranmer and his translation were opposed. Yet these homemade hand-written Bibles didn’t ‘corrupt’ Scripture but caused a spiritual revival across Europe and the Reformation itself. Tyndale states why he undertook his work,

“Which thing only moved me to translate the New Testament? Because I had perceived by experience how that it is impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother tongue, that they might see the process, order, and the meaning of the text.” “W. T. to the Reader,"

A few KJ radicals will try to avoid the serious implications of their doctrine by claiming the “KJV is translated into foreign languages”. This might make them feel better but it also reveals a contradiction and a misunderstanding of translation work.

The KJV uses archaic English names regarding objects that are known by other names today. And meanings of old English words have changed, so the AV is of little help to translators. Foreign language translations are not justified to the text of the 1611, but the Greek, Hebrew or Critical Text. Translators don’t depend on one version; they use a variety of sources. So the KJV is not used as the primary text for translating. Even if it was, words translated between languages don't always have equivalence respectively. Translating is not merely some kind of mechanical process. Sentences and words must be very carefully selected to make proper sense. In all translations, the translator(s) must on occasions make decisions as to the meaning of a passage. Even if translators correctly understand the meaning of a passage, they may be forced to decide which of the several options in the receptor language to use. This illustrates a problem; they are always looking for words to express the meaning in the recipient language. They must choose only one word and can’t always please critics regardless of what they do.

The claim that the ‘KJV is translated into foreign languages’ is contrary to their doctrine. They say that ‘individual words’ are vitally important. And changing or translating them is “tampering with God's Word” and “corrupting the text". Their literature is full of warnings about even the smallest change. We might also wonder who decides if these so-called KJV foreign language translations, have any errors? Not the KJ radicals, no, because they are a English sect only concerned with debate.

And why then, is it wrong to translate the KJV into Modern English? Translating into English is far less difficult than into languages where rules of grammar are less developed and years of study are required to learn the receptor language first. How could a KJV remain a KJV when translated into foreign languages, yet when revised (ie. RV & NKJV) become corrupt? The NKJV is based on the defective 1611 TR, yet radicals regard it more dangerous than any other “because of the subtle changes in its text”  [viii]

It's correct some translators could be accused of liberal, catholic, or overly conservative viewpoints on certain doctrines and it colours their work. Taylor for example, with the Living Bible in places departed from the original to translate so his children could understand. But if God's children grow strong using that, that’s good. Even the KJV translators advised, "Therefore as St Augustine saith, a variety of translations is profitable for finding out the sense of scriptures".

But to say "All the new versions" had "translators that were liberalists, rationalists, and spiritists" is typical of KJ radical's. They're convinced the world's against the KJV, so they demonise everyone as part of a conspiracy. In describing this conspiracy they tend to exaggerate their argument beyond the truth. Yes some of the colourful versions have had translators without a biblical background, perhaps without much education. Those types of translations will continue, but they don't serve the general public and have a very small audience. Some rightly feel those translations are sacrilegious and we would all agree.

 Not only are the KJ radicals, anti-version and anti-translator but also appear anti-evangelistic. They offer no support for world-wide Bible Societies promoting distribution of scripture. They scorn such as greedy and dishonest. Yet Bible Societies receive no government funding or profits from Scripture sale. They depend on the financial support of Christians and churches through gifts and legacies [p.4 The Word at Work. Bulletin 143 Scripture Union]. Recently the NZ Bible Society reached 3,000 Palestinian families by distributing 3,000 Bibles. By the end of 2000 it hopes for 10,000. In the remote areas of the Arabian Peninsula a distribution programme hopes to reach more than 50 different languages. In Jordan 44,000 Bibles in Arabic and another 20,000 Bibles in Iraq. It spends over $100 million per-year in translation production and distribution in 235 countries. This requires support, prayers and finance. Spreading God’s Word brings tremendous blessing, hope, inspiration and reaches millions for the Gospel. Only eternity will show the real results of what the Lord has done in many lives because of this urgent and important work.

It’s surprising but KJ advocates have a rather simplistic view of Scripture. Scripture is more complex, detailed and filled with wonder and intrigue than even the most learned linguistic scholars describe. It’s the powerful revelation of God, but it wears garments of human language and presentation. Faith is to be in Scripture, not in a language translation for that is the object of scholarly investigation. So radicals ought to desist from claims that defenders and readers of modern versions represent a heterodox view of Scripture.

6. Sinful Bible Readers?

KJ radicals have a new definition for sin. Either “…you are a King James Bible Believer or you are an enemy of the Word of God” [ix] . They say reading all other versions is “apostate unbelief”. And if you use another version because you think its more correct and are not prepared to admit the KJV is right, then in effect you are “telling the Holy Spirit He is wrong”. This is referred to as, “next door to the unpardonable sin”.[x]  In this manner, they parallel the wilful rejection of the Gospel with a wilful rejection of the KJV. This is completely unscriptural. Jesus refers to those who commit this “unpardonable sin” in danger of eternal damnation (Mtt.12:31-32). But He was not talking about using Bible versions. And most commentators believe that those who know Christ as their Saviour can ever commit this ‘unpardonable sin’ Jesus refers to. So it’s another example of their poor Scriptural exegesis.

They insist Christian’s cannot grow in faith without the KJV. And if a Christian uses any other version they have “forsaken God’s word” and will be “punished” by God. [xi] Yet the facts are, Christian’s can use the KJV or any version all their life without developing any of the strange ideas of radicals and grow spiritually in the Lord. Christian’s are not characterised or identified by the language or translation they use. They are characterised by the indwelling Holy Spirit (Gal.3:1), their love of Christ (Jn.14:15) and their “love one to another…” (Jn.13:35)

God’s people testify that He is using the clarity of modern versions to feed, speak and guide people. These Christian’s are not “Bible-hating, Bible-rejecting apostates” [xii] But they receive comfort, encouragement and guidance, God speaks and glorifies His name through modern translations. But it’s more likely an incomprehensible translation would produce immature Christians. Any suggestion not to read our Bible is more likely to come from Satan than God for the Bible is for the benefit of the Church.

7. The meaning of 'Word'

Radicals place too much emphasis on English words in the AV. Eg, when they see the word “word” in the KJV, they assume [and insist] it refers to the KJV itself. And so, this results in strange ideas regarding the KJV. In the Bible the expression ‘word of God’ can mean -

Radicals mix up the expression so much they hold the strangest views regarding the KJV. When it says, “For the word of the LORD is right and true” (Psa.33.4) they believe this refers to the KJV alone. And regard Psa.138:2, “for thou hast magnified thy word above all thy name” as referring to the KJV. They conclude God has magnified it above His Name  [xiii]. But if we read Psa.138:2 in a modern version we see that this error originates from an incorrect understanding of a poor translation in the KJV.

“…for Thou hast magnified Thy word according to all Thy name." (NAS)

Yet they insist the KJV alone is correct and the KJV has the name above His Name. Contrary to Phil.2.9 God has given Jesus “a name, which is above every name”. Paul did not share the radicals interpretation of Psa.138:2. If we examine word-meanings in the original languages to understand the meaning, Radicals reject this outright. They believe if the meaning of a Greek word differs from the meaning of an English word in the KJV, then the Greek is wrong. They say the Greek has “no authority” in interpreting Scripture, the “final authority” is the KJV. Some radicals claim, we “…don’t even know if the originals were in Greek…in fact, the entire NT almost certainly was not written in Greek.”  [xiv]  (However, they quote the Greek as an authority in support of the KJV)  [xv]

To suggest the NT was not written in Greek is nonsense. No other piece of ancient literature has such an abundance of MS witness. There’s abundant evidence the NT was written in Greek.  The KJV translators, although remarkable scholars, wrongly believed the NT was originally written in the Attic Greek of the Classics. The relevant MSs had not yet been discovered. We now know it was ‘”Koine” or ‘Common Greek’ of everyday life. This “priceless” discovery makes a huge difference when translating. [xvi]  It also teaches us from the very beginning God intended His Word to be clearly understood by the common man. The difference between Attic and Koine is significant for the interpretation of the NT.  Scholars give numerous examples of how ‘inaccurate’ the Attic Greek is when reading the NT compared to the Koine Greek. [xvii]  Most speakers of the Koine were non-Greeks, for many of them Greek was a second language. So Koine did not have the precision and elegance of the classical Attic tongue. Written Greek had a number of dialects Doric, Acolic and Ionic. Attic was related to the Ionic of Athens which fostered a brilliant array of witness, hence called Classic Greek. Koine was used by common people as a communication in hellenistic age (ca 300BC-ca AD500). It was surpassed by the Greek of the Byzantine period which in turn yielded to the advent of modern Greek (1500).

Before this discovery by Adolph Deissmann (which had gone unnoticed for nearly 2000 years) the NT Greek had been difficult to classify, for it did not conform closely to the Greek that was written in the same general period. Some had referred to NT Greek in terms of "a Holy Ghost Greek". Deissmann was first to draw attention to the similarity between the vocabulary of the non-literary papyri and that of the NT [See his books “Bible Studies” 1901 “Light from the Ancient East” 1910]. Others continued the research Grenfell Hunt, George Milligan, J.H Moulton.

(a) Where Are The Words?

I exchanged emails with a KJ radical called ‘Doc Henley’. It went like this -

Doc:  “Where are the words of God?”

Me:   “God's Words are in the Bible.”

Doc:  “But in which Bible, they are all different?”

Me:  “Yes, God then obvious uses different words for different people. He speaks to them in their language using their words. We are the recipients of a Divine revelation not a Divine translation. The Word of God is conveyed in the words of man.”

Doc:  “I don't mean that, where are the words, the ones He promised to preserve?”

Me:  “Well, God never promised to preserve the original words and that is proven by the fact we don't have the original manuscripts. They after all, had all the original words on them. And God has not preserved them”.

Doc:  “Then what did God promise to preserve?”

Me:  “The translated message of those words. Words together form the message; words of themselves have little or no meaning. It's when they are put together they make meaning. Scripture is authoritative not because of style, phrases or even the words, but what the words say.”

Doc:   “Answer the question. Where are the words of God?”

Me:  “Are they in the KJV?”

Doc:  “Yes”

Me:  “Then they have changed from one language into another. And for millions of people who don't know English, they must learn English to read the 'words of God'. In order to read the very 'words of God' and be sure about salvation or doctrine they must learn English. If not they are at a disadvantage, for God has not spoken to them. You are adding works to the gospel, in fact it's not the gospel taught in the Bible. God never intended the gospel message to be locked up in one language because the gospel is for all tongues and languages of the nations 'Whosoever will'.”

8. The  KJV

The Greek text of the KJV was essentially the Greek text of the NT as edited by Beza [1589]. He closely followed that published by Erasmus [1516-1535] and based it on a few medieval manuscripts. Erasmus was the foremost among the ‘humanist’ scholars of the Reformation period. The earliest and best of the 8 manuscripts Erasmus consulted were from the 10th century, and he made little use of them because they differed most from the common received text. Beza had access to 2 manuscripts of great value dating from the 5th and 6th centuries, but he made very little use of them because they differed from the text published by Erasmus. What a mess! Now we posses many more manuscripts and are far better equipped to seek to recover the original wording of the Greek text. Our manuscript evidence is far better than for any other ancient book both in number of manuscripts and their dates.

The Authorised Version is not named because it was “God Authorised” as radicals imply. It's named because it was “authorised to be read in the churches”.  The 1611 was a revised version and proof of the need and value of Bible revision. Revision does not seek to change the truth but make the truth clearer. The Great Bible (1539), and Matthew’s Bible (1537), and Bishop’s Bible (1568) were all revisions. And Tyndale after he produced his version (1525) he also revised it (1534).  Although the AV is the pickings of other versions much of Tyndale’s version is found in it. A case could equally be made for the inerrancy of the Great Bible or Tyndale’s. Yet KJ advocates only trust the opinions and interpretations of the KJV translators. They argue these scholars had infallibly and equal inspiration to the original Bible writers. They say that the Bible wasn’t complete or reliable until 1611. But the facts are that neither the KJV translators, copyists or printers were infallible.

Their claims are so exaggerated it means they cannot admit to one incorrect verse or word in the KJV. For that would mean they have lost the whole argument. They believe the KJV could not have ONE mistake for that would suggest ‘God has a mistake’. If anyone questions the KJV they question God, for it is regarded as perfect, even as God. In fact, the impression they give us is that the final authority is the KJV not God (This kind of logic is not new. The cults have a similar problem. Their leaders or belief system is also revered as infallible. Dedicated cultists never question what they are told or believe).

Note these claims from KJ radicals –

But why mention Proverbs 30:5 and ignore verse 6? This reads, “Do not add to his words, or he will rebuke you and prove you a liar”. The KJ translators added words to make the translation conform to English. These words were printed in roman type to indicate there was no exact equivalent in the original. In today’s KJV (also the NASB) the "supplied” words are printed in italics.

However, when they say, "If you change ANYTHING you are a bible corrector!" their word ^“anything” does not mean anything, it means ‘some-things’. "Bible Correctors" have been busy changing the KJV. I have two pages photocopied from the 1627 KJV. I count 139 changes compared with today’s KJV. The changes in today’s KJV, from the 1611 have been estimated to be 75,000. [xviii]  Whether 45 or 75 thousand, a “correction” is a “change”. It only takes one to fail the perfect test. Why argue all other versions have corrections and changes and avoid using these words concerning the KJV? Today’s KJV is not the “word-for-word …unaltered 1611”. The orthographical errors alone verify a huge numbers of alterations.

In 1612 the KJV under went the first reprint for corrections. In 1613 another edition, which corrected some errors but introduced others. It contained over 300 differences from the 1611. Criticisms resulted in a further revision in 1629. In 1638 an attempt was made to produce an "authentique corrected Bible".  This was undertaken by a committee including two of the original translators. These two ‘original translators’ recognised errors in the 1611 requiring attention. In 1653 there was another call for revision because of errors in printing, translation, and language but nothing came of the proposal. In 1675 a spelling revision was made. In 1762 another corrected edition. And yet another in 1769.  KJ advocates are forced to admit this is the KJV used today and they don’t tell us which KJV has less errors, the 1611 or 1769 ?  A summary of the 1769 is given by J. Isaac -

'The marginal references were checked and verified, over 30,000 new marginal references were added, the chapter summaries and running head notes were thoroughly revised, the punctuation was altered and made uniform in accordance with modern practice, textual errors were removed…”  [xix]

So insisting the 1611 KJV did not “contain any error” is nonsense. There has been a long history of changes and errors. In 1631 an error resulted in the KJV been called the “Wicked Bible” and in 1795 been called the “Murderer’s Bible”. And so the same criticisms made by these people about other versions are true of the KJV.  Yet they condemn the errors in other versions as “corruptions and evil” while the errors in the KJV are brushed aside as trivial. This double standard saturates their writings. When they say, “an inaccurate word is not a pure word" they ignore even the simple basic spelling mistakes found in the 1611.

When challenged on this, they gingerly respond ‘all errors have now been corrected’. This flies in the face of their whole emphasis on a perfect, inerrant, infallible KJV. And we are now asked to believe that “Bible correctors” have given us an inerrant KJV.  The very fact of changes and errors proves that the same inspiration afforded to Scripture did not follow to translations. Even the KJV translators recognised the need to revise and change their work. Their introductory note to the reader –  “Neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done"

The addition of the Apocrypha in the 1611 also constitutes an error.  Those who had the final authority on what went into the 1611 KJV included the Apocrypha. Whether agreeable or not the KJ translators “diligently” translated the Apocrypha for the 1611 [they use the word “diligently” in their introduction to the Apocrypha].  The Apocrypha contains errors in geography, history and contradicts the Bible. It contains many absurdities. Lying is sanctioned, suicide and assassination are justified, almsgiving, magical incantations, etc., are all found within. There’s a noticeable style and difference between the Apocrypha and the canon, they do not belong together.

The KJV of 1611 contained a lengthy preface entitled.  “The Translators to the Readers” which reveals the guiding purposes, attitudes, and methods of the translators of that great version. It states that the task of translating is one -

“which helpeth forward to the saving of soules. Now what can be more available thereto, than to deliver God's booke unto God's people in a tongue which they can understand? - - Now shall men meditate in that which they cannot understand? - How shall they understand that which is kept close in an unknown tongue? Translation it is that openeth the window to let in the light; that breaketh the shell, that we may eat the kernel; that putteth aside the curtains, that we may looke unto the Most Holy Place; that removeth the cover of the well, that we may come by the water.... Indeede without translation into the vulgar tongue, the unlearned are but children at Jacob's well (which was deepe) without a bucket or something to draw with"

How contrary the thoughts of the KJ translators compared to the KJ radicals. God never intended Scripture to become ‘dead letter’ in a time-trap.  Translators desire Scripture shouldn't be hard to understand and people have a translation the common “vulgar” man would understand [The word “vulgar” is another example how words change. People in 1611 would not use the word as we.]

Many KJV Editions

There have been approx 75,000 changes from the 1611 to our KJV. The 1611 suffered so many spelling errors it was reprinted in 1612. Today there are many KJV editions, so everyone cannot be ‘on the same page’ or necessarily read the same words. The first KJV off the press came with marginal column notes. The translators said they added these for "wordes and sentences" that seemed to present "difficultie and doultfulesse" to the reader.  They argued the text needed further explanation so they provided the explanation in a footnote.  Bible students need a Bible that offers a few notes and study aids. As successive editions of the KJV came off the press, the editors and printers would add more 'helps' to the margin: cross-references, alternate readings, variant spellings and interpretative comment. In 1701 a chronology was added and a date for major Biblical events.  All without mistakes?

The KJV Criswell Study Bible has an introduction, outline and subheadings. Dake's KJV Annotated Reference Bible has lengthy margin notes and gives a veritable commentary on the text and subheadings. Nave's KJV Study Bible has alternate readings from the RV. The KJV Open Bible updates some of the versions more archaic words. Some KJ editions put portions of Scripture in small italic footnotes because the authenticity of the passages is in doubt [ie Ac.8.37 1.Pe.5.2]. The Footnotes in these KJV provide textual notes and recommended 'probable' texts with alternative readings regarding deletions [Mt.24.36], substitutions [Mk.1.41], additions [Mt.21.43], etc.

Note also the many Topical KJV's. Topical Bibles place Scripture in alphabetical order.  Space limitations don't permit the quotation of Scripture verses in full so the editor edits some readings. Some of these KJV's are misleading when editors glean some far-fetched collection of Scripture verses for a topic.  Or an editor claims an authoritative message from God on matters that the Bible is silent, he can distort our understanding of Scripture. Nave's Topical KJV has the occasional alternate reading from the RV. While the Zondervan KJV Topical Bible includes ASV, RSV and RV alternate readings. We could also mention the Defender's Study Bible (KJV) which states "Easter" should be "Passover" and states twice, "no translation in any language is perfect" (Intro OT & NT). Or 'The Evidence Bible' compiled by Ray Comfort. The text is a 'Comfort-able KJV' a sensitively revised KJV in which archaic words have been simplified to make God's Word more understandable [publishes notes. Bridge-Logos Publ. 2001].

Which KJV do I believe when one differs from another? I have a plain simple Cambridge KJV and regarding Acts 12.4 the margin tells me "Easter" should be "Passover". What happens when my KJV tells me that the understanding held by the KJ radicals, of their KJV is wrong? That’s when their interpretation holds more authority than the KJV itself.

9. Scripture is Inerrant

“If the KJB is the true Word of God, then it cannot contain any error...”

 Scripture is without error or fault in all its teachings. It’s inerrant in all it affirms. But translations are not inerrant. When it comes to translations the text is not inerrant but the truths that the text conveys are inerrant. Translations have all the properties of human words and all the liabilities as well. One of the qualities of human language is that the connotation of human language is historically and culturally conditioned.  So many 16th century words do not have a 21st century meaning, and many words of this century would be meaningless for a 16th century readership.

Inerrancy does not explain how to interpret a word or verse. How we do that, is the realm of hermeneutics. KJ radicals use inerrancy to make major issues out of minor matters and create disunity among Christians who otherwise have much in common. These people don’t believe the originals were “inerrant” for them that term only applies to the KJV. They believe the originals were likely “so messed-up in places” they had to be rewritten, so the KJV “surpasses” the originals. [xx]  If translators work from the principle the originals were inerrant, they will have a high goal to work toward. If they work from the principle they weren’t then the task is hopeless and nothing we believe can be regarded as certain.

The meaning of the word "error" changes when it suits these people and their understanding of “inerrancy” is unscriptural.  They are totally unaware that the word “inerrant” is not a biblical concept. In no passage in either OT or NT is the claim made that the Biblical books are free from error. In the Bible, erring is a spiritual or moral matter not intellectual and the opposite to truth is not error but deceit. Inerrancy isn't explicitly taught in the Bible. The writers of Scripture believed Scripture completely true, but that doesn't mean inerrancy. The Bible’s implication that it’s free from error doesn't describe what the errorlessness entails. We should appreciate the culture and the means of communication developed at the time the Bible was written.  If we consider the purposes for which the Bible was given, then it is fully truthful in all it affirms. While it does not err, the important thing about the Bible is that it teaches truth. Radicals wrongly apply inerrancy in the sense of some kind of scientific exactness, in a strict sense. So even punctuation marks, capital letters and numbering of verses are all regarded as inspired and inerrant. Yet these were absent in the originals and added by translators. The chapter divisions we have today originate from the 13th century archbishop of Canterbury Stephen Langton [died in 1228]. The division into verses comes from the 1551 edition of the NT in Latin and Greek by Robert Estienne [1503-59].

KJ radicals need to declare which KJV is ‘infallible’, the 1611 KJV or today's? And are they asking us to find a Bible where the translators, copyists and printers were infallible? The facts are, even with the KJV, the translators, copyists or printers were not infallible, proven by the orthographical errors in the 1611. They alone verify a huge numbers of alterations to the text. So which KJV, the 1611 or today’s?

 Traditionally the Church has believed the doctrine of inerrancy applies in the strict sense only to the originals, and in a derivative sense to copies and translations. Only in that they reflect the original. Does that mean we discard punctuation to reflect the originals?  No! Because the copies and the translations are the Word of God, to the degree that they preserve the original message.  So Paul could write to Timothy that all Scripture is inspired, although undoubtedly the Scripture that he was referring to was a copy and probably also a translation (the LXX)  [xxi] KJ radicals reject the LXX as part of the conspiracy against the KJV [xxii]  The existence of the LXX is a valuable tool for Textual Criticism and for the meaning of Bible words. It was used by the Apostles and quoted in the NT and used by Christians for the first 300 years. It gives light on several NT quotations of the OT which did not agree with the Hebrew text and supports them. In the John Ryland University Library Manchester there is part of a Greek Papyrus 458 showing Dt.25:1-3. One of the earliest surviving texts of the Greek Bible and dated AD.125. Written within 30 yrs of the original copy "or at least within 30 years of the death of John" (p.97 The Bible The Living Word of Revelation. Zondervan 1968 R.L. Harris). The speculation regarding the origins of the LXX has been put to rest from the discovery in the Judean desert of a Greek leather scroll from the 1st century. But KJ advocates ignore these discoveries.

[Textual Criticism; is not a conspiracy, game or pass-time its a science. And I refer only to one kind, I distinguish between the good Higher Criticism of the conservative movement, and the improper destructive higher criticism of liberal theologians (which is rubbish). This includes the JEPD theory which teaches there were 4 authors for Genesis. They also attribute different OT books to authors and dates which insist the Bible was written by men, rather than inspired by God].

10. Scripture is Preserved

Scripture is full of detailed and historical facts of events and places. God has preserved this as a true record for today. No other historical record can equal the Bible. But radicals ignore that, they believe the KJV is preserved for the English-speaker. But, we must add, not every English speaker understands English the same. English is only a second language for many.  Has God done for one language group what He has not done for another? No! [Ac.10:34-35]. There are ancient Bibles in the British Museum and the Vatican Library in a very good state of preservation even after 1600 years. So what makes the KJV ‘preserved’ and not other versions? There’s nothing in the Bible that refers solely to the KJV and no other version. Not unless we are to imply the Bible writers have said something they didn’t. Radicals can make unprovable claims about the KJV but the ultimate proof that is the recovered autographs would be to have the original autographs, which we don’t have.

Yet we could argue God has preserved the Byzantine tradition and the KJV. That’s true; but He has also preserved the Western, Caesarean and Alexandrian traditions. The radicals say,

“if God has not preserved every word what does that say about God, how can I obey if we have not every word".

Having “every word” in the literal sense is having the original MSs. God did not promise to preserve the original autographs, which have “every word” in the literal sense. So why would “every word” exclude other translations? Before the printing press a complete Bible was rare. This lack of Scripture didn't “say” anything bad “about God” His desire is all should read His Word. Today many Christian’s still lack and some only have portions of Scripture. Christians in China are prepared to suffer and die for the little they have, yet the KJ radicals say they doubt they can obey God unless they have “every word”.

The constant cry of these people is “God said He would 'preserve' His words, if they are not in the KJB, where are they?”  They quote Matt.24:35 Jn.17:8 as though Jesus was referring to the KJV.

When Jesus said "every Word' which “proceeded out of the mouth of God” He was not referring to the KJV or giving “a commandment” regarding any version. He was indicating that Satan desires we distrust God in a way not authorised by God’s Word, just as Satan desired Christ depart from God's word and follow self. I too have no reason to expect that God will support me in a different manner from what he has promised in His Word. This has nothing to do with translations, but the purpose God has made known, with regard to preserving the lives of his creatures.

They quote Deut.4:2 Psa.119:89 Pr.30:5-6 Rev.22:19 as though their very existence refers to the KJV. Their favourite is Psa.12:6-7,

"The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times. Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever."

From this comes another example of an over emphasis on the words in the AV while ignoring the context. Psalm 12 is not describing the work of scribes, or God promising to preserve for “every individual” words on MSs forever. God didn't preserve the original autographs and evident in that we don't have them. None can produce those ‘very words’ in any manuscript. Nothing here, necessitates a future English translation is referred to, while other translations are not!  (We don’t even have the original 1611 KJV). God’s preservation of Scripture is far more wonderful than the KJ radicals imagine. He has provided a system whereby all men can receive a Bible, His Word in the words of their language. Including modern man with translations [ie NIV GNB ASB etc] that people can read. How silly to say the KJV is the only "preservation" God has been able to achieve, after considering at all He has done.  A correct meaning of Psa.12:6-7 is discovered in a modern translation when read in context. Note the NIV -

Psa 12:5  "Because of the oppression of the weak and the groaning of the needy, I will now arise," says the LORD. "I will protect them from those who malign them."

Psa 12:6  And the words of the LORD are flawless, like silver refined in a furnace of clay, purified seven times.

Psa 12:7  O LORD, you will keep us safe and protect us from such people forever.

Look at verse 5. Who will the Lord protect”? He will protect the ‘poor’ and ‘needy’ [Israelites].  And verse 6 is telling us the promise [vs.5] is sure and certain.  God does not make false promises, His words can be trusted. The result? The Lord can be trusted to “keep us [the Israelites] safe and protect us from such people forever”. God can be trusted to do what He says He will do. The Psalmist is not making a claim his scrolls will last “forever”.

 So these verses don't suggest the KJV is something other versions are not. For the Psalmist God's words were in his tongue, but Christ’s words were in Aramaic and written in Greek. So regardless of how careful or literal the translation into English, the result is still English words. The semantic range of the English word will seldom (if ever) correspond exactly to the semantic range of Hebrew, Aramaic or Greek word (or expression) that underlines it. Translators repeatedly seek the dynamic equivalent. Even the ‘formal equivalent’ must take into account the meaning of languages, their syntax and idioms. And how the rendering is understood compared with how a reader of the original text would understand what he read. Is the KJV a literal word for word translation? No! Many words were added to complete sentences in English. So even if we had the originals a translation can only bear witness to the meaning of the original, not to its exact words.

Evangelical Christianity rejoices that God has marvellously preserved the Bible. The words of the prophets and apostles have been recorded and preserved for generations. No other ancient book is attended by such a vast number of MSs. There are thousands which prove God preserved Scripture. The Holy Spirit excised control to produce verbal inspiration, accuracy in every statement and divine wisdom in the words penned. God’s Word is authoritative because it is the voice of God and intelligible because it is in the language of men. Inspiration then, is dynamical and not mechanical.

The writer’s penned the words God gave. And God has “preserved” all MSs and text-types regardless. Consider the frail state of the original MSs on parchment and in the form of scrolls. No scroll was large enough to contain more than one book and the OT was not bound together. In the papyrus scroll era the NT also could never circulate as a whole. Yet God wonderfully preserved His Word.

Eg, the Codex Ephraem [discovered after 1611 in Paris] is called a 'palimpsest' because there was a time when Scripture was held in little esteem. And writing materials were so valuable they rubbed out the Scripture words until barely legible and then wrote over them some theological treatise. Such a MS was found and carefully restored. It dates from the 5^th century! The Alexandrian Codex also dates from the early 5th century and was preserved for centuries in the very centre of the wicked Turkish dominion. Yet God in His wisdom and power, as Ruler over men and nations in His providence fulfilled His purposes, however rebellious men may be. The Church of Rome also was used by God to preserve another of these ancient witnesses to the text of the NT. The Codex Vaticanus was also preserved through the centuries when the Word of God was considered unimportant. The Vatican refused permission to any scholar to do more than look at it under supervision and only for a belief space of time. When God's time was ripe, it was photographed and studied further.

Contrary to the thinking of KJ radicals God has preserved His Word by translation and copying. The fact Christians began to copy and translate Scripture almost immediately in early history was vital in preserving the faith and guaranteeing accuracy in what was written. Strange as it may seem, translating God’s Word to others benefits the Church. Modernists, sceptical about the composition of various Bible books as to what the author really wrote, or what might be added, have a problem with the early MSs. Indeed, modernists attribute an unwarranted measure of freedom and creativity to the Christian tradition.

Another proof of God’s marvellous preservation is the failure of the NT Apocrypha. This was the result of a flood of spurious writings, books rejected by the whole Christian Church. Works from the Inter-testamental period have not been included in the canon even though the list grows with fresh discoveries. Yet there’s been no call to add any to the cannon. And Text Criticism is another proof. The KJV has readings found in no Greek MS at all, but traced to the Vulgate. The text-type on which the KJV is based has no two MSs that agree perfectly, so God has used Textual Criticism to guard His Word. Today, with technology we can take a 'Dead Sea Scroll' and shine a light like an x-ray through while taking pictures. Then, rebuild a picture of the scroll and read it, even though it can't be opened. And the result is that men have less excuse today than ever before in history when rejecting the Bible. Instead of modernism destroying the Bible by unbelieving claims, it has caused men to fervently study and research MSs and new discoveries and thus verify the faithfulness of God giving and preserving for us His infallible. He has preserved the Bible by its enemies and friends, by circumstances and calamities as no other writing has ever been preserved.

11. Scripture is Inspired

Radicals apply Verbal Inspiration to the KJV - God inspired the very words of the KJV, so it had to be in those words and no other. They find inspiration everywhere in the KJV and nowhere in other versions unless they are exactly as the KJV. The slightest word change (ie “whosoever” – KJV to “anyone” - NIV), causes them to defend the KJV and criticise the other. And then conclude, “NIV has made a liar out of God”. Their arguments for special KJ inspiration are so excessive and relentless one wonders why they must impress what should be obvious. Yet their views on inspiration allow for any kind of error if in the KJV. We might call this a “Divinely Inspired Error” theory.