The Printing Errors Ploy
In chapter 4 of his book Mr. Price begins his frontal attack on the King James Bible by trying to convince us that it has been “revised” several times in the past and that the text is no longer what it once was, and therefore cannot possibly be the preserved and infallible words of God. He brings up the old “24,000 variations” argument, and yet seems almost schizophrenic when he talks about how this great Book came into being.
Mr. Price mentions the previous English bibles like Wycliffe, Tyndale, Coverdale, Bishops’ Bible and the Geneva Bible and on page 61 refers to each of these as “being a revision of its predecessor, modifying, refining, polishing, purifying, and updating it to current literary usage. By the time James 1 came to the throne, the process was due to be repeated.”
He then says on page 83 that “By making use of the best scholarship of their time, and building upon the excellent foundation laid by their predecessors, these translators produced an English Bible unsurpased in excellence of language, rhythm, cadence, majesty, worshipful reverence, and literary beauty.”
Well, this has been the Bible believers argument all along. It is just as the King James Bible translators stated, and Mr. Price himself includes in his book on page 82. “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 endeavor, THAT OUR MARK.” Well, praise God, He used them to accomplish just that and we can be thankful for it.
The whole Printing Error Ploy has been addressed by several King James Bible believers such as Pastor David F. Reagan and Dr. Donald Waite. In my own article on the Printing Errors issue I address the examples Mr. Price brings up concerning Ruth 3:15, Song of Solomon 2:7, Jeremiah 34:16 and Judges 19:2. You can see it here and also find a link to Mr. Reagan’s excellent article:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/PrintErr.html
(As a sidenote, if an occasional printing error invalidates a literary work's value, then by Mr. Price's own reasoning, his book itself cannot be trusted. When I ordered Mr. Price's book about King James Onlyism, it came along with an additional printed sheet informing the buyer about various printing errors they have so far discovered in his book. This page informs us that "page 35, Paragraph 3, line 2 "know" should be "known"; p 425 Jer. 46:20 should be Jer. 46:26; p. 427 1 Kings 9:38 should be 1 Kings 9:28; p. 429 2Kingsa should be 2 Kings; p. 430 Jer. 23:20 should be Jer. 23:30; p.431 Ps. 109:33 should be Ps.107:43; p. 434 Ps. 119:102 should be Ps. 119:101. Then it lists what it calls "Index Errors" and tells us that "In the index, the page numbers are OK up to page 369; from page 370 to 394, the page numbers are usually one number too high; from page 395 and above, the page numbers are usually two numbers too high." (End of quote). A verse came to mind when I saw this added page informing me about their printing errors - "For the wisdom of this world is foolishness with God. For it is written, He taketh the wise in their own craftiness." 1 Corinthians 3:19)
The only “revisions” the King James Bible has gone through are the changes in format from the Gothic type to the Roman, the modernization of certain words like Sonne to Son, sinne to sin, and the correction of various minor printing errors that have occured and continue to occur in ALL printings of the bible or any book even in modern times.
Even the American Bible Society, no friend to the King James Bible, had this to say about the "revisions" of the King James Bible. The American Bible Society wrote, "The English Bible, as left by the translators (of 1611), has come down to us unaltered in respect to its text..." They further stated, "With the exception of typographical errors and changes required by the progress of orthography in the English language, the text of our present Bibles remains unchanged, and without variation from the original copy as left by the translators" (Committee on Versions to the Board of Managers, American Bible Society, 1852).
I found many of quoted criticisms of the King James Bible to be not only wildly exaggerated but even laughable when compared to the “examples” he then brings up to substantiate his claims. Mr. Price contines his theme of the so called “revisions” of the King James Bible, when in fact all they have done is to modernize the spelling of a few words and correct some printing errors.
At one point on page 99 Mr. Price quotes a Dr. Scrivener who wrote concering Benjamin Blayney’s 1769 “revision”, saying: “...more recent editors were right in the main in gradually clearing the sacred page of uncouth, obsolete, and variable forms which could answer no purpose save to perplex the ignorant, and offend the educated taste.”
So what exactly were these “uncouth, obsolete” forms that “perplex the ignorant and offend the educated taste”? Well, we don’t have to wonder, because Mr. Price lists a few choice examples on page 98 where Scrivenir says: “The following are a few examples of the changes made by Blayney.” Exodus 23:13 “names” changed to “name”; Numbers 4:40 “houses” changed to “house”; 1 Kings 16:23 “the thirty and one year” changed to “the thirty and first year”; Ezekiel 1:17 “returned” changed to “turned”, John 15:20 “then the Lord” changed to “than his Lord”; and Revelation 12:14 “flee” changed to “fly”.
So these are his examples of “uncouth, obsolete forms that perplex the ignorant and offend educated taste”?!!? This is pure silliness. These are nothing more that insignificant printing errors, yet Scrivener and Mr. Price are describing a tempest in a teapot.
Mr. Price again reveals his schizophrenic thinking when, after making a list of Scrivenir’s “errors” in the previos printings of the KJB, he then says: “Concerning the 24,000 variations, the American Bible Society Report stated, ‘Yet of all this great number, there is not one, which mars the integrity of the text, or affects any doctrine or precept of the Bible.”
The Usual List of Suspects
The next major area of criticism repeated by James Price are ones we have all heard many times before in our Bible clubs. Anyone who has read the books that criticize the King James Bible (and uphold none as the pure words of God) are very familiar with these examples of what the Bible critics call “oversights” or errors of one kind or another.
The three examples Mr. Price next brings up are the same ones James White conveniently has in his book too. They are Acts 19:20 “the word of GOD”; Hebrews 10:23 “the profession of our faith” and their all time favorite “strain at a gnat” in Matthew 23:24. Let’s take a further look at these examples of “error” in the King James Bible.
Acts 19:20 "So mightily grew the word of GOD and prevailed.
In his book, The King James Only Controversy, James White says on page 67 that the King James translators used the Latin Vulgate to come up with the reading "the word of GOD", rather than the Greek texts. Is this true?
Joining James White is another man who likewise does not believe that any Bible in any language is now the complete and pure words of God. In his book, King James Onlyism: A New Sect, James Price tells us on page 114: "Scrivenir listed two examples of what he called "oversight" and "inadvertence". In Acts 19:20 all English Versions (except Coverdale) read "OF GOD", although the Greek texts all read "OF THE LORD". The only support for the reading "of God" seems to be the Clementine edition of the Latin Vulgate."
As we shall soon see, both Mr. Scrivenir and James Price are perhaps ignorant as to why many translations have legitimately rendered this phrase as "the word of GOD”. They are also wrong about the reading found in ( as they say) "the Greek texts". There are a variety of readings here with some Greek texts like E, 88, 436, reading "the word of God" as well as the Old Latin manuscripts ar, c, e, gig, p, ph, ro, w, and the Armenian versions. Then the well know manuscript D actually reads "the FAITH OF GOD" instead, and this is the reading found in the Syriac translations of Lamsa, Murdoch and Etheridge.
But for the sake of argument, let's go with the text followed by the KJB translators and see if Mr. Price's assertion is right, OK?
People who say this is a translational error are merely voicing their personal opinion, which many other translators do not share. I am not an expert, but I know enough to be able to defend the KJB here. The word is literally Kurios, which usually in the N.T. is translated as Lord. However, in the Greek translations of the Old Testament, the word Kurios is used thousands of times for the Hebrew words God (Elohim) and Jehovah. I’m not defending any particular Greek translation, but merely want to show how the Greek language itself works.
It is interesting that the phrase "the word of God" is only found 3 times in the Hebrew Old Testament. Usually the phrase is "the word of the LORD". Yet in the Greek translations of the O.T. two of the three times the phrase "the word of God" is used, the Greek uses "the word of Kurios". The two places where the Hebrew says "the word of God" and the Greek translation has "o logos Kuriou" are 1 Kings 12:22 and 1 Chronicles 17:3. The one where the Greek uses Theos is Proverbs 30:5 "o logos Theou".
Not only does the King James Bible translate Acts 19:20 as "the word of GOD", but so also do Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, the Geneva Bible 1599, Matthew's bible, Bishop's bible 1568, Wesley's 1755 translation, the Italian Diodati 1649, and the Italian Riveduta 1927, the Douay-Rheims 1950, Webster's 1833 translation, Young's 'literal', the KJV 21st Century version and the Third Millenium Bible. So the KJB is by no means alone in translating this phrase as "the word of God".
It should also be noted that the vaunted NASB has done a similar thing but in reverse in Acts 12:24. There the Nestle-Aland Greek text, as well as the Majority and the Textus Receptus read "the word of GOD grew and multiplied." The word here is Theos - God, and so read the RV, ASV, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV, Holman Standard, KJB, NKJV and numerous others, yet the NASB says "the word of the LORD" as does the Douay version, thus following a very minor reading and that of the Vulgate too."
Also, the word for Jehovah # 3068 is translated in three different ways in the King James Bible - as JEHOVAH, LORD, and GOD. The NKJV, NASB, NIV all translate it as both LORD and GOD, but not as JEHOVAH. In any case, both the Hebrew and the Greek words can legitimately be translated as both God and Lord, and many Bible translators have done this very thing.
The Greek lexicons, like Liddell and Scott, 17th Abridged edition 1878 page 400 tell us that Kurios equals the Hebrew Jehovah, and Baer, Arndt and Gingrich on page 460 say Kurios can mean "lord, master, owner" and also is "a designation for God". So, when the KJB translated this word as God here in Acts 19:20 they were well within the acceptable meanings of the Greek word.
Even the NIV has translated this same word Kurios as "master, sir, owner, and his majesty".
Dr. Jeffrey Khoo, Academic Dean of Far Eastern Bible College says regarding Acts 19:20: "The KJV is not a mistranslation, and does not differ from the TR. The Greek word kurios can be translated in a number of ways depending on the context. It can be rendered "Lord", "master", "Sir", "God", or "owner". (see The Complete Word Study Dictionary: New Testament, 900-1). Acts 19:20 certainly allows for "God" instead of "Lord" since the context is speaking of the Word of God as a whole. If it is rendered as "the word of the Lord" it might be construed as some specific word from Jesus instead of God's Word or the Holy Scriptures in general. In any case, whether it is "the word of God", or "the word of the Lord", both are perfectly acceptable translations of the original."
Acts 19:20 in the King James Bible is not an error, nor a departure from the Textus Receptus, but is a perfectly acceptable and accurate translation of the underlying Greek text.
If we follow the various opinions of men like James White or James Price, we end up never knowing for sure what or where the true words of God are found. These two men certainly do not agree even with each other regarding numerous textual matters. They only thing they both have in common is their shared belief that the King James Bible is not the pure word of God and that there is NO pure Bible anywhere on this earth.
The next one both White and Price pick on is Hebrew 10:23. You can see our defense of this verse here:
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/profaHeb10.html
The last one for the moment is the famous one in Matthew 23:24 about straining “at a gnat”. Here is one Bible believer’s defense of this phrase as found in the Book.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/strain.html
“Staining at Gnats”
While we’re on the subject of straining at gnats, let’s take a closer look at many of the petty and unlearned claims Mr. Price makes about the spelling and language of the King James Bible. It would be tedious to address every example he brings up, so we will take a look at just a few of the gnat straining examples Mr. Price lists in his efforts to discredit the language and wording of this magnificent Book of Books.
The language of the King James Bible is not as disorganized or as fickle as Mr. Price attempts to portray it. Among the “discrepancies” he lists are the capitalization or non-capitalization of words like “the Spirit of God” (Gen. 1:2) or “the spirit of God” (Exodus 31:3), the “holy spirit” (Psalm 51:11) versus “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13), and the use of the indefinite article before the letter “h” as being either “an hairy garment” (Gen. 25:25) versus “a hairy man” (Gen. 27:11).
First of all, almost every Bible version out there will sometimes capitalize the Spirit of God and also use the phrase “the spirit of God”. God Himself has a soul and a spirit, just as man does, but there is also sometimes a reference to the Third Person of the Blessed Trinity as being the Spirit of God. Sometimes “the spirit of God” refers to the energy, power or character of God that influences human behaviour. It often is not clear as to which of these is being referred to. This “confusion” is seen in most Bible translations that have ever been printed. All you have to do is simply type in “spirit” or “Spirit” and see how the various translations have dealt with this matter. There is no consistent agreement among the various versions.
For example, in Genesis 1:2 the Bible translations that have a capital S refering to the Third Person of the Trinity, and say “the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters” are Wycliffe 1395, the Geneva Bible 1599, the ASV 1901, NASB, NKJV, NIV, the Complete Jewish Bible, and RSV.
However Bible versions that read: “the spirit of God” with a small “s” we find the following: Coverdale 1535, Bishops’ bible 1568, the Revised Version of 1881, the Douay-Rheims, and the 1917 Jewish Publication Society translation, and the 2001 Judaica Press Tanach.
The NRSV actually reads “the WIND from God swept over the face of the waters.”
In Exodus 31:3 the King James Bible reading may refer to the power and energy of God’s personal spirit that enables a man to fulfill certain callings. God called Bealeel and “filled him with the spirit of God, in wisdom, and in understanding, and in knowledge, and in all manner of workmanship.”
The reading of “the spirit of God” is found in Bishops’s bible, Coverdale, Wycliffe, the Revised Version, Darby, Bible in Basic English, the 1917 JPS (though other Jewish translations have “Spirit”), Green’s 2000 translation, and the NRSV.
However other translations read the “Spirit of God”, like the NASB, NIV, NKJV, ASV and the Geneva Bible.
Let’s take a look at just one more of a multitude of verses that could be used to show how the distinction between “the spirit” and “the Spirit” is not always that clear or even necessary. The translations all throughout history are in total disagreement with each other. In Genesis 41:38 Pharoah says regarding Joseph: “Can we find such a one as this is, a man in whom the Spirit of God is ?”
Translations with a capital S in “the Spirit of God” are the following: the Geneva Bible, KJB, Darby, NKJV, Complete Jewish Bible, RSV and the 2001 ESV.
However versions that read “the spirit of God” with a small “s” are the 1917 JPS, the ASV, NIV, Coverdale, Bishops’, Young, and the NRSV. The NASB says “a divine spirit”. Notice too that the previous RSV has “Spirit”, then the revision of the revision NRSV has “spirit”, but then the revision of the revision of the revision called the ESV now once again reads “the Spirit of God”.
Mr. Price is merely straining at gnats and has no valid or consistent argument to condemn the King James Bible for something that ALL Bible translations do.
As for the issue of the “holy spirit” (Psalm 51:11) versus “the Holy Spirit” (Luke 11:13), please see my article about the Holy Ghost and the Holy spirit in the King James Bible.
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/HolyGhost.html
Many other scholars and Bible translators disagree with Mr. Price’s mere opinion when he criticizes the King James Bible on page 111 saying: “Here are references where the word “spirit” is capitalized in the King James Version where it refers to an evil spirit: “Spirit of the LORD” in 1 Kings 22:24 (2 Chron. 18:23).”
Well, the context is that of a false prophet who thinks he is a true prophet of the Lord who comes to Micaiah and says: “Which way went the Spirit of the LORD from me to speak unto thee.” Here in the KJB the deceived prophet actually thought he had been previously been used by the Spirit of the Lord, and NOT an evil spirit. It doesn’t even make sense to read it as Mr. Price has suggested. Bible translation that agree with the KJB reading of “the Spirit of the LORD” are Wycliffe, the Geneva Bible, the ASV, Youngs, Darby, Complete Jewish Bible, Holman Standard, NASB, and the 2001 ESV.
However versions that read as Mr. Price suggests are Coverdale, Bishops’, the NRSV, NKJV and the NIV. Again, notice that the RSV read “Spirit,” then the NRSV had “spirit”, and now the ESV once again has gone back to “Spirit”. Mr. Price is just one more confused voice among a multitude of conflicting Multi- Versionists, who all differ from each other and NONE of whom believes in the existence of a tangible inspired and 100 % pure Bible.
Regarding Mr. Price’s criticism of the KJB’s varied use of the indefinite article before the letter “h” as being either “an hairy garment” (Gen. 25:25) versus “a hairy man” (Gen. 27:11), we should note the following facts. The pronunciation of the English letter “h” before a vowel has changed over the years and even today is varies from region to region.
The English “h” is sometimes a fricative or hard sounding “h” as in “house” or the modern American pronunciation of “horse”, but there are many other words where the letter “h” is to one degree or another silent as in the modern pronunciation of “hour, heir, honor”. However some English speakers around the world still continue to differ from others in sounding the “h” in many of the same words such as “horse, hide, hidden and hairy”, much like some in our own country do with “herb” or “homage”.
Not only does the King James Bible say that Esau was like “AN hairy garment” but so does the English Revised Version of 1881, and instead of “a hairy man” in Genesis 27:11 Wycliffe’s translation says he was AN hairy man. It is in the King James Bible that we can see and trace the evolution of our English language. This is why the King James Bible still has words like “especial” and “special”, and “since” and “sith” (Ezekiel 35:6 - this is also the spelling found in the 1881 Revised Version), or “ensample” (1 Peter 5:3) or “example” (1 Peter 2:21) - they both mean the same thing, one is just an older form that evolved into the other.
The same can be said for Mr. Price’s criticism of the King James Bible use of the words “ye” and sometimes the variant “you” for the second person plural nominative pronoun as he does on page 112.. The older “ye” was giving way to the more generic “you”, but it is actually the King James Bible that is FAR MORE ACCURATE in its use of YE (you and your) to indicate the Hebrew and Greek plural and the Thee (thy, thine, thou) to indicate the Hebrew and Greek singular.
See the article discussing why the use of Ye and Thee are far more accurate to the Hebrew and Greek, and why they should be retained here -
http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/yethee.html
Will Kinney