An Impossible Challenge for KJVOs

[childofdust]

I challenge any KJV-Only advocate to prove that the King James Bible is an accurate translation without using any translation other than the KJV. You must base your reasons for the supreme accuracy of the KJV on nothing other than the original languages as evidenced by the manuscripts and papyri themselves. And you must do so without any reference whatsoever to your own personal FEELING or PREFERENCE. You must use objective, verifiable FACTS that anyone who is not KJV-Only would agree with, and provide the evidence right here, directly from the manuscripts, for everyone to see.

Why do I make this challenge? Simple: because I want everyone to see how HOPELESS the KJVO position is and that its adherents don't know ANYTHING about the actual text they are arguing about. So prove me wrong. Prove that you know what your text actually says. Defend the KJV based on the original languages, pointing out the very Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic words themselves in the actual manuscripts.

In fact, I will start things off by doing that exact thing myself, but the opposite--I will prove based on the original languages in actual manuscripts, verifiable by anyone, that the KJV is not accurate (see next post). Can you do otherwise? I DARE YOU.

 

[childofdust]

I will avoid any obvious errors that are too easy to point out (like the Latin name Lucifer, which does not exist in any Hebrew manuscript in existence, yet is in the KJV) and go for something more interesting.

It is a fact that the Masoretic Text of Ruth 3:15 has ויבא, which is a masculine verb referring to a “he.”

Here it is in the Lenningrad Codex:



Here it is in the Aleppo Codex:



Here it is in Ben Chayyim's printed edition, which was the underlying Hebrew used by the KJV translators:



Unfortunately, the word is not preserved in the Dead Sea Scrolls.

I could give you a dozen more examples from the manuscripts themselves, but there would be no point. The Hebrew refers to “he” ויבא

Interestingly enough, the original 1611 KJV agreed with god's word:



However, it was thereafter changed to a feminine instead of masculine verb and it has remained that way ever since. Here is what the Authorized KJV published by Cambridge University Press (the so-called “Pure Cambridge Edition”) says:

“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city."

SHE went. That is a FEMININE verb. This is the feminine form: ותבא

Note that that feminine form does not appear ANYWHERE in the Hebrew. Nowhere. It is non-existent. Unless you have a copy of the very first printed edition of the KJV, your KJV has a FALSE and INACCURATE translation of Ruth 3:15. I have proved it from the manuscripts themselves, verifiable to anyone.

Can any KJV-Only advocate answer my challenge in the OP? I DARE you.

 

[1watchman]

Any version by man has errors, but one thing is for sure: God will only hold one responsible for what God has told us, and one needs to be very sure of that counsel. Sadly, since many of the new versions in modern wording have omitted or added wording to please men, some of the emphasis and meanings are lost.

I use the NKJV as a cross-reference, but use the KJV mostly. I find it has stood the "purifying test of time", as is often said about the KJV; which means that in good quality versions the margins and footnote commentaries clarify any perceived errors over the years of review. That cannot be said of all the many new versions coming out every few years.

I find the Old Scofield Edition of KJV very informative in my studies; and one can see in the Concise Bible Dictionary some history of manuscripts forming the various Books of the KJV. I think I have got the picture God has given, and will stay with this course and expect to be on solid ground when I meet my Lord in Heaven.

 

[Unix]

The 1959 OT/1971 NT RSV 2nd Edition preserves the only things of value in the KJV.

 

[mark kennedy]

I will avoid any obvious errors that are too easy to point out (like the Latin name Lucifer, which does not exist in any Hebrew manuscript in existence, yet is in the KJV) and go for something more interesting.

It is a fact that the Masoretic Text of Ruth 3:15 has ויבא, which is a masculine verb referring to a “he.”

Let's skip the convoluted mess of manuscript images for the moment and try a look at the text:

Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city. (Ruth 3:15 KJV)​

That's the challenge, 'laid it on her'? You had to make such a convoluted mess of the text over that? Of course, the NKJV has a comment on the text:

Ruth 3:15 Many Hebrew manuscripts, Syriac, and Vulgate read she; Masoretic Text, Septuagint, and Targum read he. (NKJV notes)​

That's typical of Bible critics, a minor personal pronoun problem and it's an indictment against the oldest and most common translation of the Scriptures into English.

Note that that feminine form does not appear ANYWHERE in the Hebrew. Nowhere. It is non-existent. Unless you have a copy of the very first printed edition of the KJV, your KJV has a FALSE and INACCURATE translation of Ruth 3:15. I have proved it from the manuscripts themselves, verifiable to anyone.

To that I say so what.

Can any KJV-Only advocate answer my challenge in the OP? I DARE you.

Manuscripts run into this, misspelled words and grammar. Doesn't it make sense that English translations would run into the same thing. You dare me to what exactly, admit an error? The only response has to be yea, so what?

 

[Unix]

The KJV was the most printed Bible everywhere in the 18th century and in 1800-1864, so what?:

The only response has to be yea, so what?

 

[mark kennedy]

The KJV was the most printed Bible everywhere in the 18th century and in 1800-1864, so what?:

Because I figure if all you are doing is criticizing the Scriptures anyway it's irrelevant what you consider the significance of trivial errors. As far as the overall popularity over the last four hundred years in the hundreds of millions of copies. No big deal.

I don't know what the animosity for the KJV is based on but it's not based on minor textual variation. That is at best, a pretense.

Have a nice day
Mark

 

[Unix]

Lots of textual variation and the kind of bias I can't wrap my mind around:

I don't know what the animosity for the KJV is based on but it's not based on minor textual variation.

 

[robycop3]

Because I figure if all you are doing is criticizing the Scriptures anyway it's irrelevant what you consider the significance of trivial errors. As far as the overall popularity over the last four hundred years in the hundreds of millions of copies. No big deal.

I don't know what the animosity for the KJV is based on but it's not based on minor textual variation. That is at best, a pretense.

Have a nice day
Mark

It's not so much any animosity toward the KJV, but against the false KJVO MYTH, which sez the KJV is the ONLY valid English bible translation out there.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

Any version by man has errors, but one thing is for sure: God will only hold one responsible for what God has told us, and one needs to be very sure of that counsel. Sadly, since many of the new versions in modern wording have omitted or added wording to please men, some of the emphasis and meanings are lost.

I use the NKJV as a cross-reference, but use the KJV mostly. I find it has stood the "purifying test of time", as is often said about the KJV; which means that in good quality versions the margins and footnote commentaries clarify any perceived errors over the years of review. That cannot be said of all the many new versions coming out every few years.

I find the Old Scofield Edition of KJV very informative in my studies; and one can see in the Concise Bible Dictionary some history of manuscripts forming the various Books of the KJV. I think I have got the picture God has given, and will stay with this course and expect to be on solid ground when I meet my Lord in Heaven.

Amen, sounds good to me.

 

[robycop3]

I have a better challenge for KJVOs: Please provide some SCRIPTURAL SUPPORT for the KJVO myth.

 

[thankfulttt]

I challenge any KJV-Only advocate to prove that the King James Bible is an accurate translation without using any translation other than the KJV. You must base your reasons for the supreme accuracy of the KJV on nothing other than the original languages as evidenced by the manuscripts and papyri themselves. And you must do so without any reference whatsoever to your own personal FEELING or PREFERENCE. You must use objective, verifiable FACTS that anyone who is not KJV-Only would agree with, and provide the evidence right here, directly from the manuscripts, for everyone to see.

Why do I make this challenge? Simple: because I want everyone to see how HOPELESS the KJVO position is and that its adherents don't know ANYTHING about the actual text they are arguing about. So prove me wrong. Prove that you know what your text actually says. Defend the KJV based on the original languages, pointing out the very Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic words themselves in the actual manuscripts.

In fact, I will start things off by doing that exact thing myself, but the opposite--I will prove based on the original languages in actual manuscripts, verifiable by anyone, that the KJV is not accurate (see next post). Can you do otherwise? I DARE YOU.

Your question would only be viable if we possessed the original manuscripts.(Autographs/letters.)

 

[jbearnolimits]

Your question would only be viable if we possessed the original manuscripts.(Autographs/letters.)

Indeed this is true. Also it should be noted that for an "accurate" translation you would have to write in the same language. Which would not longer be a translation. That is only IF you define accurate as word for word and not word for definition of the word in another language. Even the storyline plays into a proper translation.

Anyway, I could probably spend days talking about this subject. But I would rather just point out that the KJV (and others translated word for definition with attention to sentence structure and story line) are accurate based on their ability to stand up under the constant quest by people looking for contradictions.

To this date I have never heard of a "contradiction" that can not be sorted out with a closer inspection of the Bible. And believe me, I have heard a lot of people try. Most of the time their words only show how little they actually know of the Bible.

So...I would rather not waste time in a debate over the matter. Instead I would encourage everyone to ask themselves this question:

Would I rather trust newer translations of different documents than the KJV, which has not been successfully tested as of yet? Or would I rather trust the KJV which was translated from other documents that have stood the test of time?

And no, I am not a KJVO person. I use many Bibles, but the one I trust is the KJV. Or the NKJV depending on my mood lol.

By the way, I just found this forum through a post of my own where someone must have thought I was someone else and told "me" to keep threads like this only in this forum lol. So it's nice to meet all of you.

 

[thankfulttt]

Indeed this is true. Also it should be noted that for an "accurate" translation you would have to write in the same language. Which would not longer be a translation. That is only IF you define accurate as word for word and not word for definition of the word in another language. Even the storyline plays into a proper translation.--------------------

I use other translations though not by choice. The Good News Clubs have gone from the KJB to the NIV, and now the ESV. It makes it extremely troublesome in memorization.

One can understand the love for the translation that many have been using, since in a lot of situations it is the Bible they have been using since they were first saved.

If one studies the birth of these new translations, consisting of their founding fathers and the manuscripts from which they were formed, they wouldn't be so quick to attack the King James Bible.

 

[robycop3]

It's not so much an attack on the KJV but on the KJVO MYTH, which sez the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

The KJV is sometimes attacked because many KJVOs claim it's perfect, so we Freedom Readers prove it's NOT perfect. Same as all other Bible translations, it's God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

 

[thankfulttt]

It's not so much an attack on the KJV but on the KJVO MYTH, which sez the KJV is the ONLY valid English Bible translation.

The KJV is sometimes attacked because many KJVOs claim it's perfect, so we Freedom Readers prove it's NOT perfect. Same as all other Bible translations, it's God's perfect word handled by imperfect men.

No translation is any better than its base. When you examine individually, the base of the new translations, the lives and beliefs of the men doing the early work on the base, and their motivation for their work, many would be utterly surprised.

In reality their are only two translations, the King James, and all the others that are based on the revisionists of the nineteenth century.

Can any scholar here show us the Old Testament from their best and oldest manuscripts from which are often touted as the oldest and best? That would be an original photo copy in Greek.

Some have said, don't let facts get in the way of our studies.

 

[James Is Back]

What I don't get about KJVO's is that they bastardize the NKJV but yet it was translated the same way as the KJV via the TR(Textus Receptus).

Also what I don't get is that some KJVO people might be anti Catholic. If there are some than you have to understand that the translator that did the KJV was named Desiderius Erasmus who was a Catholic priest and that at one point the KJV contained the Apocrypha.

 

[robycop3]

Well, actually, James, ole Erasmus compiled the Textus Receptus a collection of Koine Greek texts from which the KJV's New testament was translated.

BTW, the TR has been revised some 30 times since it was first published, with Erasmus making two of them.

 

[Restoresmysoul]

What I don't get about KJVO's is that they bastardize the NKJV but yet it was translated the same way as the KJV via the TR(Textus Receptus).

Also what I don't get is that some KJVO people might be anti Catholic. If there are some than you have to understand that the translator that did the KJV was named Desiderius Erasmus who was a Catholic priest and that at one point the KJV contained the Apocrypha.

It doesn't much matter who compiled what. The scribes and pharisees compiled the scriptures as well. However as far as the translation goes, i would say that its fallible just as most translations are.

 

[thankfulttt]

What I don't get about KJVO's is that they bastardize the NKJV but yet it was translated the same way as the KJV via the TR(Textus Receptus).

The NKJV continually points to the NU as having the correct reading. Who is NU?