Every Man For Himself Bible Versionism

[brandplucked]

How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible debunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error.

Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts.

This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given - "There is a copyist error". There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395,Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible 1549, the Bishops' Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Jerome's Vulgate 382 A.D., Clementine Vulgate, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay 1950, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, French Louis Segond, Portuguese Almeida, the NKJV 1982, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the new Judaica Press Complete Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Amplified Bible 1987, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The Masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and new one begun.

God promised to preserve His words. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. When our Lord mentions the jots and tittles He is speaking of the Hebrew language.

The King James Bible Old Testament is solely based on the Hebrew text. All modern versions depart from the Hebrew text in numerous places. Versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NRSV, and Daniel Wallace's NET version even tell you this in their footnotes. The NASB rejects the Hebrew text in at least 40 places too, but it doesn't let you know this. You have to consult other versions and compare them to find this out.

The NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Wallace's NET version, and NIV change the number 42 to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. The NIV, NET, and Holman Standard footnote says: "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac read 22; the Hebrew says 42".

The Septuagint version I have says 20 years old, not 22 nor 42.

Not only do the NASB and NIV change the Hebrew text here and say 22 rather than 42, but so also do Young's, Darby's, the Bible in Basic English, the 2001 English Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Holman CSB, and the New Living translation.

There is a solution to this apparent contradiction.

Sad to say, almost every Bible commentator I consulted caves in at this point and tells the reader that a scribal error has been made in all the hundreds of Hebrew copies. This is why I do not trust any Bible commentary as my final authority. What one commentator affirms another one just as adamantly denies. Surprisingly, the only one I found that actually offers a reasonable explanation of the two passages without calling into question the Hebrew texts is Dr. Lightfoot. He says: " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign--(Compare 2Ki 8:26). According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, in the forty-second year of the kingdom of his mother's family [LIGHTFOOT]."

Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6.

In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: "And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB.

Ahaziah was son- in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son -in- law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab.

When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab. Ahaziah could not have been 42 years old biologically, because his father was only 40 years old when Ahaziah became king (See 2 Chron. 21:20 - 2 Chron. 22:2 [Jehoram (the father of Ahaziah) was thirty and two years old when he began to reign, and he reigned in Jerusalem eight years, and departed without being desired...and the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead...Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign"). For a man to become a father at the age of 18 is very likely, but for a son to be born two years earlier than his father is not.

The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side.

When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father.

22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab.

Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram and died childless is excluded from this equation because he was not related in a father to son relationship with either Jehoram of Israel or Ahaziah of Judah. He had no children.

Furthermore, the two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by both Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel.

When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made coregent. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel."

The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle so Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign. However this Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.

2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Aahaziah began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year.

We see that Ahaziah was coregent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was coregent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of father's and sons who have offspring which reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah.

Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahazhiah.

The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah.

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.

The new version editors like Gleason Archer, and many Christian apologetic web sites say, “This is a scribal error.” They are clearly wrong and are guilty of unbelief and using human reasoning when dealing with the infallible words of the living God. I believe God has preserved his words without error, and we have those inspired words today in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

Return to Articles - articles - Another King James Bible Believer

Since writing this article defending the Hebrew Masoretic text and the King James Bible, another Bible believer sent me a link to a very good article dealing with this apparent contradiction, and I have contacted the man who wrote it. He does a very good job of defending the Book and gives a good explanation of how to put it all together. You can see his article at this site:

http://www.letgodbetrue.com/bible/scripture/ahaziah-contradiction.pdf

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Well, Look, there are two ways to deal with these verses and the apparent contradiction. The Hebrew texts read the way the KJB and many others have it. If you are incapable of thinking it through and looking for an explanation as to why the Hebrew texts read this way, then you get lazy and filled with unbelief and human wisdom and you assume that the Hebrew texts have been corrupted, not only here, but in many other places as well. So, you either prove to be a Bible believer or you show yourself to be a Bible agnostic like most lazy Christians are today.

I'll post the answer in the next one.

Will Kinney

so .. you acknowledge an error but still call it inerrant, how does that work?

 

[brandplucked]

so .. you acknowledge an error but still call it inerrant, how does that work?

You know, Michael, I think the bogus modern bible versions must turn your minds to mush. I notice a lot of times you fellas can't seem to follow the lines of simple logic.

There is no error in the Hebrew texts nor in the King James Bible nor in innumerable other Bible translations in both English and other languages in this verse. Ahaziah was both 42 years old and 22 years old from two different perspectives or ways of reckoning his age.

It is the NIV English version (the Spanish NIV actually has it right), NET, ESV, NASB and Holman that are wrong because they think the Hebrew texts have been corrupted. God just tricked those who would place their own minds above His infallible words. God confounds the wise and and makes foolish the wisdom of this world.

Take a good close look at this list. I expanded it a bit for you.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Jerome's Vulgate 382 A.D., Clementine Vulgate, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay 1950, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, Luther's German Bible 1545, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, the NIV Spanish translation 1991 !!! - "Tinha quarenta e dois anos quando começou a reinar", the Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927 and the Nuovo Diodati 1991 - "Achaziah aveva quarantadue anni quando iniziò a regnare", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Achazia avait quarante-deux ans lorsqu'il devint roi", Portuguese Almeida- "Tinha quarenta e dois anos quando começou a reinar ", the NKJV 1982, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989 (Bruce Metzger), the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the new Judaica Press Complete Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible 2004, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Amplified Bible 1987, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old.

The NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Wallace's NET version the Message 2002 and the NIVs change the number 42 to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. The NIV, NET, and Holman Standard footnote says: "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac read 22; the Hebrew says 42". Yet the NIV Spanish translation (Nueva Versión Internacional) of 1994 clearly reads 42 years old - cuarenta y dos años.

The Septuagint version I have says 20 years old, not 22 nor 42.

Not only do the NASB and NIV English edition, ESV, NET and Message change the Hebrew text here and say 22 rather than 42, but so also do Young's, Darby's, the Bible in Basic English, the Living Bible, the Holman CSB, and the New Living translation.

Get yourself a King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.

Will Kinney

 

[Gregory Thompson]

You know, Michael, I think the bogus modern bible versions must turn your minds to mush. I notice a lot of times you fellas can't seem to follow the lines of simple logic.

There is no error in the Hebrew texts nor in the King James Bible nor in innumerable other Bible translations in both English and other languages in this verse. Ahaziah was both 42 years old and 22 years old from two different perspectives or ways of reckoning his age.

It is the NIV English version (the Spanish NIV actually has it right), NET, ESV, NASB and Holman that are wrong because they think the Hebrew texts have been corrupted. God just tricked those who would place their own minds above His infallible words. God confounds the wise and and makes foolish the wisdom of this world.

Take a good close look at this list. I expanded it a bit for you.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395, Coverdale 1535, the Great Bible 1540, Matthew's Bible (John Rogers) 1549, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, Jerome's Vulgate 382 A.D., Clementine Vulgate, the Revised Version 1885, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay 1950, the New Berkeley Version 1969, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Catholic Public Domain Version 2009, Luther's German Bible 1545, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, the NIV Spanish translation 1991 !!! - "Tinha quarenta e dois anos quando começou a reinar", the Italian Diodati 1649, the Riveduta 1927 and the Nuovo Diodati 1991 - "Achaziah aveva quarantadue anni quando iniziò a regnare", the French Martin 1744, Louis Segond 1910 and the French Ostervald 1996 - "Achazia avait quarante-deux ans lorsqu'il devint roi", Portuguese Almeida- "Tinha quarenta e dois anos quando começou a reinar ", the NKJV 1982, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989 (Bruce Metzger), the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the new Judaica Press Complete Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible 2004, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Amplified Bible 1987, KJV 21st Century Version 1994, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old.

The NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Wallace's NET version the Message 2002 and the NIVs change the number 42 to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. The NIV, NET, and Holman Standard footnote says: "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac read 22; the Hebrew says 42". Yet the NIV Spanish translation (Nueva Versión Internacional) of 1994 clearly reads 42 years old - cuarenta y dos años.

The Septuagint version I have says 20 years old, not 22 nor 42.

Not only do the NASB and NIV English edition, ESV, NET and Message change the Hebrew text here and say 22 rather than 42, but so also do Young's, Darby's, the Bible in Basic English, the Living Bible, the Holman CSB, and the New Living translation.

Get yourself a King James Holy Bible and you will never go wrong.

Will Kinney

I already have an interlinear with strongs . and i'll over look the flame there,

here's another question for ya, in the gospels, what was the last question Jesus was asked before no one dared to ask him any more questions?

 

[BloodBoughtChad]

here's another question for ya, in the gospels, what was the last question Jesus was asked before no one dared to ask him any more questions?

Hi Michael. What was the first thing that came out of Satan's mouth in Genesis? The very first thing he ever spoke to man?
"hath God said?"

 

[Gregory Thompson]

Hi Michael. What was the first thing that came out of Satan's mouth in Genesis? The very first thing he ever spoke to man? "hath God said?"

you haven't answered my question . is it really that hard to dicern?

i am not saying has God said this, i am saying as Jesus said, the scriptures, how do you read them?

 

[BloodBoughtChad]

you haven't answered my question . is it really that hard to dicern?

i am not saying has God said this, i am saying as Jesus said, the scriptures, how do you read them?

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" - Matthew 22:46

 

[Gregory Thompson]

"Master, which is the great commandment in the law?" - Matthew 22:46

Why do you call me master? there's only one, that being Jesus.

Why do you ask me what is the greatest commandment when you interpret all scriptures with equal value?

we know from the master's words that, that which serves is the greatest

so the greatest commandment is agape, that gives like we breathe, and like rain clouds, regardless .

 

[BloodBoughtChad]

Why do you call me master? there's only one, that being Jesus.

Why do you ask me what is the greatest commandment when you interpret all scriptures with equal value?

we know from the master's words that, that which serves is the greatest

so the greatest commandment is agape, that gives like we breathe, and like rain clouds, regardless .

I agree 100% brother.

 

[CTS]

My question for KJVO believers:

Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible more inerrant and accurate than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts?

If your answer is "YES, the KJV is more accurate" - than you are elevating the KJV to an idolatrous level, claiming it exceeds the original written and God-breathed words of Scripture (1 Timothy 3:16).

If your answer is "NO, the original manuscripts are more accurate" - then you are admitting that the KJV is not the perfect and infallible translation of God's Word.

There can't be an in-between answer on this: either the KJV is more accurate than the originals, or it isn't. And the answer is obvious - it isn't. I use the KJV regularly along with the NASB, NKJV. And I think that the KJV is an excellent translation. But this so-called KJV-Only mentality is absurd, and it is elevating the KJV to an idolatrous level. What makes you think that God has some special regard for English-speaking believers that He would ensure the divine accuracy of only the KJV? KJV-Onlyism is a belief that is laden with pride, arrogance, stubbornness, and utter foolishness. Preaching the infallibility of a sole English translation of the Bible that was translated by men (and full of initial errors and mistakes, some of which were corrected in subsequent versions) is an unscriptural and false teaching. Does God specially favor the KJV and all English-speaking people over other languages and people? Do others have to learn Elizabethan English in order to read the only divinely true and accurate Word of God? What an arrogant and prideful teaching KJVO is.

I read earlier in this thread an answer to the question: why did the 1611 KJV contain errors and misprints if it was divinely inspired? The KJVO answer went something like this: just because it had errors and misspellings doesn't mean it wasn't God-breathed. My response is: really? God divinely inspired the KJV of the Bible and the divine translators managed to misspell and make errors? That goes against the definition of divinely inspired. The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts are the only inspired and God-breathed Scriptures. So the question then becomes: why would God allow the original manuscipts (His only 100% true Word) to be lost? Why wouldn't He preserve His Word in other translations (as KJV-Onlyers suggest)? Well we don't exactly know. But we do know this: we HAVE God's Word. It might not be painstakingly correct to every last word and punctuation mark. But the message of the Divinity and Salvation of Christ through His blood and sacrifice on the Cross is demonstrated thoroughly in several versions of the Bible.

And I'm not saying that every modern version of the Bible is good for Christians and new believers. I am very wary about several translations (TNIV, LB, CEV, NCV, etc.) and I'm strongly opposed to The Message, which skews several verses and doctrines. But the point is, if we are to be ambassadors for Christ, then we need to reach out (not compromise) to the unsaved and the culture we live in, rather than hide in the past with our 1611 AV, fighting with those who don't solely adhere to the "infallible" KJV. Reaching out to the saved includes translating the Bible in updated language (and I'm not a proponent for making a new translation for every generation. Some of the accurate and trustworthy translations that are available to us now, i.e. the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc., are sufficient for a very long time. It would be dangerous (spiritually and theologically) to create new Bible translations very often or for each generation).

The inciteful and arrogant rhetoric from the KJV-Only believers I've read does absolutely nothing to convince people of the KJV's divine infallibility. If anything, it makes people much less likely to ever want to read from the KJV again. Besides the several errors in the AV (i.e. turtle instead of turtledove, Easter instead of Passover, etc etc.) Sure, the KJVO's have rigorously accumulated an arsenal of apologia for the KJV, focused on defending the KJV until death - but the countless explanations and smoothing over of KJV errors and difficulties proves to be a desperate attempt to uphold the "infallibility" of a Bible translated by men in the 1600s in Elizabethan English. Some of the explantions I've read are ridiculous at best. It's time to put away the pride and arrogance in the KJV as if it's an ultimate authority.

It is imperative that the church and Bible versions adapt with language and culture. This does not mean that we compromise our biblical values, beliefs and ideals for the sake of the current culture - but if we hold onto dogmatic superstitions (like the superiority and infallbility of the KJV), there will inevitably be less and less believers. Although I (and many other Christians) revere the KJV and its majesty, prose, and authenticity for its time -- there is a plethora of unsaved people out there who would never be able to read more than a few sentences of the KJV without being confused, bored, or tired of reading. This is because of the archaic words and sentence structure. Brandplucked - you recently posted something listing all the 'archaic' words in the NIV and how in some verses the KJV is more understandable. But the KJV wins the Archaic Award by a mile. You seemed to forget the multitude of words that the majority of modern English speakers don't know in the KJV. If we are to reach out and spread God's Word to unsaved people, then translations of the Bible need to match up with modern language and prose so that people will be willing to read and invest in God's Word and truth -- and this doesn't mean translations should skew, loosely translate, or compromise God'd Word in translation -- there are several translations that accurately and faithfully translate God's Word into modern, readable, and understandable English.

I'm not going to argue this back-and-forth. It would be a waste of time. From what I've read on this thread, the KJV-Onlyists are never interested in a good debate -- they are only interested in upholding the reverence of the KJV, despite every good argument and rebuttal against some of their baseless claims. I'm not pointing my finger or judging any KJV-Onlyists at all -- iI'm simply saying that KJV-Onlyism is a dangerous, arrogant, prideful, and unscriptural ideology that is rooted in the egoistic thought that God reveres a particular English version of the Bible above all other languages and versions (including the original manuscripts!).

There is a myriad of unsaved people in the world right now who need to experiences the grace, mercy, and love of Jesus Christ. They need to read the saving power of God's Word. They need to be reached out to by the hands and feet of Christ, which is us Christ-followers. The unsaved don't care about which Bible version is the best, and no unsaved person is going to come to faith in Christ by hearing the rhetoric of KJV-Onlyism. They need to here God's truth and salvation, whether it be from thr NASB, NKJV, HCSB, ESV or another trustworthy translation that upholds the central tenets of the faith our belief in Christ's divinity as God's Son. KJV-Onlyism is a cult and it is unscriptural.

I say all of this with love; I'm not saying any of this to judge or condemn KJV-Only followers. My hope is that we can look to God and revere the central tenets of our faith in Christ, rather than dabble in issues like KJVO, so that we can utilize our efforts, time, and priorities on spreading the saving message of Christ to the unsaved in our world.

-CTS

 

[brandplucked]

My question for KJVO believers:

Do you believe that the King James Version of the Bible more inerrant and accurate than the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts?

If your answer is "YES, the KJV is more accurate" - than you are elevating the KJV to an idolatrous level, claiming it exceeds the original written and God-breathed words of Scripture (1 Timothy 3:16).

If your answer is "NO, the original manuscripts are more accurate" - then you are admitting that the KJV is not the perfect and infallible translation of God's Word.

Hi CTS. It is a documented FACT that fewer and fewer Christians today believe that ANY Bible in ANY language is the infallible words of God. Not even you do in spite of all your protests to the contrary.

Let's look at a few of your very poorly thought out, shallow and meaningless statements. You tell us: " we do know this: we HAVE God's Word....The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures."

Tell us, CTS, where exactly we can get a hold of these "original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts" that you affirm ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures". You use a present tense verb here - "ARE"- meaning that they EXIST NOW, and you tell us that they "are" exclusively the "only" inspired Scriptures.

Your whole foundation is non-existent, invisible, imaginary and never seen by you a day in your life. Here is a big hint - THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS!

You are professing a faith in something that you know does not exist, and yet speak of it as though it did, and imply or outright state that we Bible believers (who DO have a real Bible) are ignorant, proud, arrogant and divisive.


Brother, at least we DO have a real and tangible Book that we hold out to the world as the absolute Standard of Final Written Authority from God, and we don't have to pretend to be something we are not. We really do believe in a tangible Bible you can hold in your hands, read and believe every word.

By contrast, what do you have? NOTHING. "The original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek manuscripts ARE the ONLY inspired and God-breathed Scriptures" never did make up an entire 66 book Bible and you have never seen a single word of these "only" inspired originals and never will. You can't tell anybody else where to find them if your life depended on it.

If I am mistaken about your stated position that "only the original Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek manuscripts ARE inspired" and "we HAVE God's word", then all you have to do to put me in my place and show how "proud and arrogant" I am for presuming to point out to you the utter absurdity and meaningless of your pious sounding statements, is to tell us exactly where we can go to see these "originals that ARE inspired" or even where we can get a hold of a copy of them. Would you do that for us? Show us all just how wrong headed we Bible believers have been all this time, OK? Thanks.

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

Some of the accurate and trustworthy translations that are available to us now, i.e. the NASB, NKJV, ESV, etc., are sufficient for a very long time. -CTS

You fellas have a very strange way of using words to define things that are very, very different. You tell us that the NASB, NKJV and ESV are "accurate and trustworthy" translations. Oh, really? Are you aware of the fact that the NKJV contains some 17 entire verses in the New Testament that are not found in your "accurate" ESV, plus another 1000 or so words from other phrases and partial verses? And that is just in the New Testament. Then the ESV rejects or adds to the Hebrew texts found in the NKJV several hundred more words and both your NASB and ESV differ in meaning in well over a hundred other verses where they supposedly are translating the same underlying texts. Yet you call them "accurate and trustworthy".

Here is just a small sampling I have posted a few times now and all you professing Bible believers keep avoiding it. Would you mind telling us how "accurate and trustworthy" are apt adjectives to describe the NASB, ESV and NKJV in the light of these outright contradictions? Please help me to see the error of my ways.

Just pick one example if you wish, and let us know how "accurate and trustworthy" that reading really is. Maybe you could consult those "originals that ARE the only inspired words of God" you seem to be privy to and then let us know which bible version got it right. OK? Thanks.

“MEANINGLESS and PICKY DETAILS”?

The following short list is just a sampling of the divergent and confusing readings found among the contradictory modern bible versions. There are numerous other examples. Among these “details” are whether Jeremiah 27:1 reads Jehoiakim (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, KJB) or Zedekiah (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman); whether 2 Samuel 21:8 reads Michal (Hebrew texts, KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or Merab (RSV, NIV, NASB, ESV, NET, Holman), or 70 (NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, Holman, KJB) being sent out by the Lord Jesus in Luke 10:1 and 10:17 or 72 (NIV, ESV, NET), or in Matthew 18:22 does the Lord say to forgive your brother not “until 7 times, but unto 70 times 7 times” (= 490 times - RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV, ESV, ALL Greek texts) or 77 times (NRSV, NIV), or the 7th day in Judges 14:15 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV) or the 4th day (RSV, ESV, NASB, NIV, NET, Holman), Or Hannah taking young Samuel to the house of the LORD with THREE bullocks in 1 Samuel 1:24 (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, JPS 1917, NKJV, Youngs, NET) or “A THREE YEAR OLD BULL: (LXX, Syriac RSV, ESV, NIV, NASB, Holman) or God smiting 50,070 men in 1 Samuel 6:19 (KJB, RV, ASV, NASB, NET) or 70 men slain (RSV, NIV, NRSV, ESV), or “70 men- 50 chief men” (Young’s), or “70 MEN OUT OF 50,000 Holman Standard, or there being 30,000 chariots in 1 Samuel 13:5 (KJB, NKJV, RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or only 3000 (NIV, NET, Holman), or 1 Samuel 13:1 reading - ONE/TWO years (NKJV, KJB, Geneva, Judaica Press Tanach), or 40/32 (NASB 1972-77) or 30/42 (NASB 1995, NIV, Holman), OR 30 years/ 40 years (NET) or _____years and.______and two years (RSV, NRSV, ESV), or even “32 years old...reigned for 22 years” in the 1989 Revised English Bible!; 2 Samuel 15:7 “forty years” (Hebrew, Geneva, NKJV, NASB, RV) OR “four years” (NIV,RSV, ESV, NET), or whether both 2 Samuel 23:18 and 1 Chronicles 11:20 read “chief of the THREE” (Hebrew texts, RV, ASV, NKJV, NRSV, Holman, NIV, NET, Holman, NET) or THIRTY from the Syriac (NASB, RSV, ESV), or 2 Samuel 24:13 reading SEVEN years (Hebrew, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NET) or THREE years (LXX, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman), or whether 1 Kings 4:26 reads 40,000 stalls of horses (Hebrew, RV, ASV, NASB, ESV, NKJV, Holman) or 4,000 stalls (NIV, NET) or whether 1 Kings 5:11 reads 20 measures of pure oil (Hebrew texts, Geneva, KJB, ASV, RV, NASB, NRSV) or 20,000 (RSV, NIV, ESV, NET, LXX and Syriac) or 110,000 gallons (Holman) or in 2 Chronicles 31:16 we read THREE years old (Hebrew texts, Geneva Bible, Wycliffe, LXX, Syriac, RV, ASV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NKJV, Holman, NET) or THIRTY years old (NASB - ft. Hebrew “three”) or where 2 Chronicles 36:9 reads that Jehoiachin was 8 years old when he began to reign (Hebrew texts, NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, KJB, RSV, NRSV ESV 2001 edition) or he was 18 years old (NIV, Holman, NET, ESV 2007 edition), or that when God raised the Lord Jesus from the dead it is stated in Acts 13:33 “this day have I begotten thee” (KJB, NASB, NKJV, RV, RSV, NRSV, ESV) or “today I have become your Father” (NIV, Holman, NET).

All modern bible versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman Standard,etc. often reject the clear Hebrew readings and not even in the same places. These are undeniable facts. Here are many examples:

NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

NIV,NASB reject Hebrew2 - Another King James Bible Believer


"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

[brandplucked]

The inciteful and arrogant rhetoric from the KJV-Only believers I've read does absolutely nothing to convince people of the KJV's divine infallibility. If anything, it makes people much less likely to ever want to read from the KJV again. Besides the several errors in the AV (i.e. turtle instead of turtledove, Easter instead of Passover, etc etc.) Sure, the KJVO's have rigorously accumulated an arsenal of apologia for the KJV, focused on defending the KJV until death - but the countless explanations and smoothing over of KJV errors and difficulties proves to be a desperate attempt to uphold the "infallibility" of a Bible translated by men in the 1600s in Elizabethan English. Some of the explantions I've read are ridiculous at best. It's time to put away the pride and arrogance in the KJV as if it's an ultimate authority."

Hi CTS and others who might be interested in this discussion. I just wanted to make a few comments on this particular paragraph posted by CTS.

We are approaching the issue of the infallibility of The Bible from very different points of view. CTS tells us that ONLY the original Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic ARE inspired. If anybody takes the time and THINKS about what he just said and follows his logic, then we must conclude that No translation in any language is the infallible words of God NOW and NO inspired and infallible bible exists in Hebrew or Greek either, since we do not have and have never seen a single word of these long lost, turned to dust, inexistent originals that WERE (not "are") inspired and infallible.

Simply put, CTS and those like him do not have nor do they believe that any Bible in any language on the earth today IS the complete, inspired and infallible words of God. So, they think that because we King James Bible believers DO believe such a Book exists and are willing to defend it in the midst of an ever increasing and wide spread unbelief in the Infallibility of the Bible, that we are "proud and arrogant" simply because we take the position that God promised to preserve His words, heaven and earth would pass away but His words would not pass away, and "the Scripture cannot be broken".

Obviously if we KJB believers are convinced that God has given to the world such an infallible Book, then all those versions that differ from it in both texts and meanings are not the infallible words of God. This is the only consistent and logical position of faith to take. If one Bible is true and the other "bibles" either omit the verses all together (some 17 to 45 entire verses in just the N.T. alone) or completely changes the meaning (42 to 22,or 7 to 4 or numerous other things like this), then one is true and the other is false. They cannot both be equally true and infallible in the same place when they both read entirely differently. This is just God given common sense.

Notice too how CTS complains about that 1600's Elizabethan English. You know, like all those "thee"s and "ye"s I suppose. And just what does a man like CTS recommend as the only inspired and infallible words of God? Well, it those "originals in Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek", don't ya know. Yes, indeedy, the archaic Hebrew Greek and Aramaic is much easier to read and understand than anything you will find in the English language of the King James Bible, right?

By the way, I wonder if CTS or any other modern version promoter out there actually knows what the important difference is between "thee, thine, thou" and "ye, your, and your". I have asked several of them here and not one of them has yet responded to this. Did you know that the use of all those archaic 'thee, thine, thou" and "ye"s are far more accurate to the underlying Hebrew and Greek texts?



So, because we King James Bible believer point out the obvious to them, those who do not believe that ANY Bible in ANY language IS right now the infallible words of God accuse us of being "proud and arrogant" because we do not agree with their biblical agnosticism.

Now, who is really being guilty of pride and arrogance, the Bible believer or the Bible agnostic who has made his own mind and understanding his final authority?

We KJB believers did not write the King James Bible. None of us were on the translation committee and we receive no royalties or personal recognition from promoting and defending it as God's pure words. It wasn't even written in my own country. It came from England.

We simply take God's promises regarding His words as true and do not try to change the texts or the meanings of the English words God has put His pure words into. We do not say things like "this text does not belong in the Bible" or "it really should not be translated this way but that" or "this reading has been corrupted or lost from the originals" or "I like this translation better".

The people who do these types of things are the bible agnostics, each of whom has set up his own mind and understanding in judgment on God's Book and reason for themselves which whole verses, or phrases or individual words either should be or should not be in The Book of the LORD. And of course not one of these bible agnostic fellas agrees 100% of the time with anybody else out there. They have become their own final authority. Now, which of these two very different approaches to the words of God found in His Book do you think God would consider to be "proud and arrogant"?

Something to think about.

By the way, the two "errors" CTS brought up - turtle and Easter - only reveal his own methods of placing his own mind and understanding as his final authority. Many other Bible translators agree with the KJB's use of both "turtle" and Easter. In fact, the Greek word used for Easter (paska) means just that today. That is how they say Easter in many languages even today.

To see more on both "turtles" and "Easter" you can go here if interested.

Turtles

turtle observed pineth - Another King James Bible Believer

Acts 12:4 Easter

Easter,replenish - Another King James Bible Believer

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

[Brandpluckt]

Will,

i must confess i have not read every single word of this thread, but rather skimmed it. i did notice something though, or rather did not notice. i was unable to find anywhere that you were able to prove that your view of the king james translation was biblical. so if you have it, please do provide scriptural support showing that the king james is the only perfect and inerrant translation of the original languages. thanks

Ken willy

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I think what takes away credibility away from KJO enthusiasts is that in the 1800's someone committed the Jeroboam sin of removing the Apocrypha from it .

 

[brandplucked]

Will,

i must confess i have not read every single word of this thread, but rather skimmed it. i did notice something though, or rather did not notice. i was unable to find anywhere that you were able to prove that your view of the king james translation was biblical. so if you have it, please do provide scriptural support showing that the king james is the only perfect and inerrant translation of the original languages. thanks

Ken willy

Hi Ken, great question. Naturally, this question has come up a lot over the years that I have been involved in the Bible version issue, so (quite expectedly) I have written a response to it.

I'll get to it in the next post.

Blessings,

Will K

 

[brandplucked]

In response to Ken's very good question -

Is King James onlyism Scriptural?

We who believe God has preserved His inspired words only in the Authorized King James Holy Bible are accused of being unscriptural.

What does the Book say? God told the prophet Isaiah in chapter 59:21 "This is my covenant with them; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever."

The Lord Jesus Christ said in Matthew 24:35: "Heaven and earth shall pass away, but my words shall not pass away."

Isaiah 40:8: "The grass withereth, the flower fadeth: but the word of our God shall stand for ever."

Psalm 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."

Psalm 19:7: "The law of the LORD is PERFECT, converting the soul: the testimony of the LORD is SURE, making wise the simple." The "law and testimony of the LORD" = His words.

Psalm 100:5: "For the LORD is good; his mercy is everlasting; and his truth endureth to all generations."

Psalm 119:152, 160: "Concerning thy testimonies, I have known of old that Thou hast founded them for ever. ... thy word is true from the beginning: and every one of thy righteous judgments endureth for ever."

John 10:35: "... the Scripture cannot be broken."

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.

God's words are in a BOOK. Consider the following verses: "Now go, write it before them in a table, and NOTE IT IN A BOOK, that it may be for the time to come FOR EVER AND EVER." Isaiah 30:8

"Seek ye out of THE BOOK of the LORD, and READ: no one of these shall fail...for my mouth it hath commanded..." Isaiah 34:16

"And if any man shall take away from THE WORDS OF THE BOOK of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are WRITTEN IN THIS BOOK." Revelation 22:19

God has promised to preserve His words, here on earth, in a form that will be known and spoken among His seed, till the end of this world. How has He done this? Modern scholars tell us: "No translation is inspired; only the originals were inspired." The originals no longer exist. Is it biblical to say no translation is inspired? Again, what does the Book say? Moses spoke to Pharaoh in Egyptian, yet is was translated into Hebrew.

God can and does refer to the Book of the Lord as being a real object even though it is still in the process of being written and perfected. Yet He sees the end from the beginning and refers to a future event (from our point of view) as a present reality.

Daniel 10:21 - 11:2 - "the Scripture of Truth"

Another clear example of God's Book being progressively revealed to us is found in one of the heavenly visions revealed to the prophet Daniel. In chapter 10 a heavenly messenger is sent to Daniel who tells him: "But I will shew thee THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH". The angel then says - "And now will I shew thee THE TRUTH. Behold, there shall stand up yet three kings of Persia: and the fourth shall be far richer than they all..."

Here the angel refers to a Book of Scripture that is ALREADY WRITTEN IN HEAVEN, and that is progressively revealed to man. This "Scripture of truth" has already recorded coming events BEFORE they happen in time. Nothing takes God by surprise; He sees the end from the beginning, and there is a completed Book in heaven that God progressively reveals to His people in time and history.

Jesus probably spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, yet His words were translated into Greek as were the O.T. quotes. To say "no translation is inspired" is not biblical. Please see my article "Can a Translation be Inspired" for further development of this topic, here -


Translation inspired - Another King James Bible Believer


Scholars tell us God has preserved His words somewhere in a few thousand conflicting manuscripts which only they can read. Yet they cannot agree among themselves as to which texts to put into their "bibles", nor how to translate the meaning once they agree on the text.

Get 10 scholars into a room and you will come up with 12 different opinions. They try to piece together the original words from the remaining, conflicting manuscripts. Yet God can work through this "scholarly process" Himself much better than they, and place His true words in one volume, because He knows which words are His and which ones are not.

I often hear objections raised by "scholars" who themselves do not believe that any Bible in any language, including "the" Hebrew and "the" Greek, is now the complete and inerrant words of God. They ask such things as: "Well, how do you know the King James translators got it right?" or "What was their textual source for deciding which readings were inspired and which ones were scribal additions or omissions?". Implied in their very questions is the idea that there is no such thing as an inerrant Bible now, nor ever was one.

Don't the "scholars" who put together the constant barrage of "new and improved, based on the latest findings" type of bible versions that keep coming down the pike go through a similar process, at least in their own minds and on their best of days? Don't the modern scholars get together and pray asking God to guide their efforts, hoping that perhaps theirs will be the best bible version to ever appear in print and be "the closest to the originals" of any of them? (This scenario is, of course, giving them the best of all possible motives for their work).

Is it impossible for God to work through a group of dedicated men, though fallen, sinful and imperfect, to bring about the truth of His preserved and perfect words and place them in a real Book between two covers printed on paper with ink, that the children of God can actually hold in their hands and believe every word? Why do the Bible critics mock at the idea that God may have actually already guided through this "scholarly process" and done what they themselves think they are trying to do today? I don't get it.

The indebtedness of the King James Bible translators to their predecessors is recognized most clearly in the Preface to the reader where they state in no uncertain terms: "Truly, good Christian reader, we never thought, from the beginning, that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one; but TO MAKE A GOOD ONE BETTER, or OUT OF MANY GOOD ONES ONE PRINCIPAL GOOD ONE, NOT JUSTLY TO BE EXCEPTED AGAINST that hath been our endeavour, that our mark."

The King James Translators also wrote: "Nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are the thoughts to be the wiser: so if we build upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labors, do endeavor to make better which they left so good...if they were alive would thank us...the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished."

God is under no obligation to give equal light or gifts to all people. Psalm 147:19,20: "He sheweth his word unto Jacob, his statutes and his judgments unto Israel. He hath not dealt so with any nation; and as for his judgments, they have not known them. Praise ye the LORD."

He has not promised to give every individual a perfect Bible. Even modern scholars will admit there are inferior translations. Yet using the Jehovah Witness version, or just a gospel tract, someone can come to know the Lord. We are only responsible for the light we have received.

I believe in the sovereignty of God in history. "For the kingdom is the LORD'S; and He is the governor among the nations." Psalm 22:28. God has set His mark upon many things in this world that reveal His Divine hand at work in history. Why do we use the 7 day week instead of the 10 day week? Why are dates either B.C. (Before Christ) or A.D. (Anno Domini - year of our Lord)? (although the secular world is now trying in vain to change this too to BCE and CE.) England just "happens to be" the one nation from which we measure the true Time (Greenwich time, zero hour) and from which we measure true Position, zero longitude.

In 1611 the English language was spoken by a mere 3% of the world's population, but today English has become the closest thing to a universal language in history. He used the King James Bible to carry His words to the far ends of the earth, where it was translated into hundreds of languages by English and American missionaries for over 300 years. The sun never set on the British empire. It was even taken to space by American astronauts and read from there. God knew He would use England, its language and the King James Bible to accomplish all these things long before they happened. It is the only Bible God has providentially used in this way. It is the only Bible believed by thousands upon thousands of believers to be the inspired, infallible and 100% true words of God.

We are falsely accused of trusting in a 17th century Anglican translation. No, we do not defend the KJB translators, their doctrines, prefatory remarks or their marginal notes. We trust in the living God Who used imperfect, sinful men both to write the originals and to preserve His words.

We defend only THE TEXT AND THE MEANING of the King James Holy Bible. Modern scholars admit their bibles are not inspired and contain errors. Ask your pastor where you can get a copy of the inspired writings of the prophets and apostles. If he doesn't believe in the inerrancy of the King James Bible, you are in for a real treat when you hear his answer.

Check out my article called "There is No Inerrant Bible", and you will see factual statements from many leading Evangelicals showing that most seminarians and future pastors no longer believe in the inerrancy of Scripture. - The Bible NOT inspired - Another King James Bible Believer



The NKJV, NIV, Holman Standard, and the NASB all contain provable false doctrines and disagree among themselves. The NIV and NAS reject in many places the Hebrew to follow the LXX, Syriac, Targum, or something else and the NIV and Holman tell you this in their footnotes.

(For examples of where versions like the NASB, NIV, etc. reject the Hebrew texts, and not always in the same places, please see the first two links here. And to see some concrete examples of false doctrine found in the modern versions, take a look at the third link provided here.)


NIV, NASB reject Hebrew - Another King James Bible Believer

NIV,NASB reject Hebrew2 - Another King James Bible Believer

NoDoctrineChanged - Another King James Bible Believer



The "all scripture is given by inspiration of God" in 2 Timothy 3:15-16 applies to what Timothy and his mother had in their home hundreds of years after the originals had turned to dust.

To say, "only the originals were inspired" is unbiblical. Which view is more scriptural, that of the King James Bible believer, or that of the modern "Bible Of The Month Club" promoter?

The "Thus saith the Lord" of old, has been replaced by "How does this version render it?".

I can hold the pure, perfect, inerrant words of the living God in my hands and read them in the King James Bible. What do you have in your hands?

"He that hath ears to hear, let him hear." Matthew 11:15

Will Kinney

 

[Gregory Thompson]

I suppose the best tactic is still to just ignore them and the KJV will go away .

 

[Gregory Thompson]

KJO actually transgresses the passage James writes on Wisdom in Chapter 3 of his letter.

KJO is actually coming from an envy of other people's choice

and a bitterness that the world does not make their job as Gospel carriers any easier .

blaming other bible versions for your inability to be an embassador to a particular culture, does not make your stance any more Godly or biblical .

what about "love does not seek their own way" KJO, sounds very much like someone seeking their own way .

It definitely does not come from faith. for if KJO supporters really believed that this was God's translation of the bible, then they would trust Him in convincing others to adopt it as their interpretation.

the Gospel is not tied up in bible translations, if you want that then forget translations, go back to the manuscripts and begin there.

the Gospel is preaching Christ Crucified.

conversations like this thread exhibits are one of the reasons why people hold off on even considering to listen to Gospel preachers .

 

[Brandpluckt]

Will,

"God has promised to preserve His wordS IN A BOOK here on this earth till heaven and earth pass away."

now, you gave several verses before this, but i don't see anywhere that these verses indicate that God is promising a complete bound copy of the 66 canonical books. you do after indicate isaiah 30:8 which does mention a book, but common orthodox interpretation of this passage shows that this "book" is more akin to a posted announcement. i can provide commentary from puritans if you disagree. after you use isaiah 34:16 which mentions "the book of the LORD" this is a common reference to the books of the law, not all of canonical scripture and certainly not pertaining to the books that came after isaiah, since they had yet to be written.

"God has promised to preserve His words, here on earth, in a form that will be known and spoken among His seed, till the end of this world. "

in a form that will be known and spoken? where is this promise of translational preservation in scripture?

you then go on to mention daniel 10:21 and caps lock on the section saying "THAT WHICH IS NOTED IN THE SCRIPTURE OF TRUTH" again, it seems this is presumption on your part that this must mean the written word as laid out for us in the bible or in the autographa. but the passage in context seems to indicate more accurately that this is most likely the eternal decree of God and not simply the written inscripturation of His word. again, i can give historical interpretation if necessary.

"Jesus probably spoke in Hebrew or Aramaic, yet His words were translated into Greek"

really? let us suppose you are 100% accurate saying that Jesus did not speak greek. we are told in the bible that "All scripture is given by inspiration of God.." and "holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Spirit" we have no indication in scripture that there was any translational work done. scripture is given and the authors of scripture were moved by the Holy Spirit to write what God wanted written.

the rest of your post does not deal with scriptural proofs for the king james being the only inerrant and perfect translation of the original languages, so, although i read all of it, will not further comment on it.

finally, even though your proof text do not indicate what you assume they indicate, let us for a moment assume they do. how do any of them prove the king james instead of the geneva, the asv of 1901, or the rsv with 2nd edition NT?

Ken Willy