[Will Kinney]

Does the King James Bible depart from the preserved Hebrew texts?

In the ongoing battle for the Bible those who do not believe such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible exists now or ever did exist in any language on this earth have recently taken up a new tactic to try to convince the Bible believers that our King James Bible is just as corrupt as their multitude of conflicting, error filled Bible of the Month Club versions. In fact, they come right out and say it. “See, even if our modern versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, Holman, NET, etc. DO reject, depart from and change the Hebrew texts, so does your King James Bible. You’re in the same boat we are.”

It is an undeniable FACT that all modern versions like the NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NET, Holman and the NKJV often and in numerous places clearly reject the Hebrew readings and either replace them with some partial Septuagint readings, the Syriac or they just make them up out of thin air, and often not even in the same places as the others have done it.

For specific and provable examples of this, please see these two articles:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing! In his internet posts he likes to refer to “the scripture” but he never comes right out and tell us what he means by “the scripture” nor where we can get a copy of it so we can compare it to whatever Bible version we’re reading now so we can see the differences. It seems his only spiritual interest is to get us to believe like he does, that is, that no such thing as an inerrant Bible exists.

Here is the list of alleged King James Bible departures from the Hebrew texts that Brian recently posted at one of the Bible Agnostic ....err... Christian clubs that abound on the internet today. What we see here is a rather silly attempt by a couple of men who do not believe that any bible in any language is now or ever has been the complete and inerrant words of God.

Many of these examples even go against their own Bible of the Month Club versions so popular today. Yet you will not hear one peep of protest from any of the other members there who use their NASB, NIV, or ESV’s even though this goofy list criticizes their own preferred versions. The only important thing to the Bible Agnostic is that he is attacking the final authority of the King James Bible, and that is what they all have in common.

Let's take a look at the examples posted and see if there is any merit to them.

Genesis 41:56 Hebrew: what was in them LXX & KJV: storehouses

Well the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, NIV, 1917, 1936 all translated it the same way as the KJB. Better burn those modern versions guys. This man has the only true handle of what God REALLY said ;-)

Exodus 8:23 Hebrew: ransom LXX & KJV: division

RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, 1917 Jewish Publication Society, 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company version, Youngs = KJB. NKJV- difference; NIV = separation; NRSV= distinction. Looks like we'd better stoke those fires nice and hot. Nobody got it right except this guy and his imaginary and never published “scripture”.

1Samuel 16:4 Hebrew: he said LXX & KJV: they said (not true. wrong verse?)

1Samuel 25:8 Hebrew: is upon us LXX & KJV: we came

- No idea what he's talking about. NASB, NIV, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, Holman, Young, 1917, 1936 all = KJB

2Chronicles 17:4 Hebrew: God LXX & KJV LORD God

- "LORD" is in italics in the King James Bible, showing you that the word LORD was provided by the translators, but the parallel passage in 1 Kings 22:43 reads LORD and so it is supplied from that place. The addition also emphasizes that it was the one true LORD (Jehovah) God that is being referred to in the context. Also reading "LORD God of his father" are Wycliffe, the Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, Lamsa 1936, Amplified 1987, KJV 21st Century 1994 and the Third Millenium Bible 1998.

ALL the new versions frequently "add" the words God or Lord to various texts when they think the context calls for it. In fact, the NIV, by their own admission, has added the words God or LORD some 104 times in the Old Testament when it does not occur in the Hebrew text and they have omitted it some 51 times when it DOES occur. Then in the New Testament the NIV has added the word JESUS 336 times when not in the texts, and the word GOD 117 times. Yet all this is brushed aside and seems to be OK with the modern version bible agnostics - BUT, when the King James Bible does this type of thing one or two times, then they blow a gasket, rise up in sanctimonious indignation and cry “Error!”. Go figure.

For several examples where versions like the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV etc. add and even omit the words God and Lord, see:

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/Godfd.html

Job 15:11 Hebrew: gently LXX & KJV: secret

- This is another translational issue, not a textual one. The NKJV has another totally false footnote. It says the LXX reads "secret thing". This is a bald faced lie. The LXX copy I have is so far out of whack it is laughable. Instead of saying: “Are the consolations of God small with thee? is there any secret thing with thee?” the LXX actually reads: "Thou hast been scourged for but few of thy sins; thou hast spoken haughtily and extravagantly."!!! It is totally unrecognizable when compared to any other bible version out there. The NKJV editors are lying to you.

Most modern versions like the NKJV, NIV, NASB generally say something like: "Are the consolations of God too small for you, And the word spoken gently with you?"(NKJV). However it should be noted that the words "word spoken" are not in any Hebrew text and there are a wide variety of different translations.

Agreeing with the King James Bible's "is there any secret thing with thee" are the 1549 Italian Diodati, the 1602 Spanish Reina Valera "cosa oculta", Luther's 1545 German bible, Geneva Bible "strange thing", Websters 1833, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible 1998 all read "secret thing". The Modern Greek translation also agrees with the KJB saying "he exeis ti apokruphon en heautoo" = "Do you have any hidden thing in yourself?"

The New English Bible 1970 reads "a word whispered quietly"(which would agree in sense with the KJB). Wycliffe read "shrewed words" while Bishops had "lying words" and Douay had "wicked words".

John Gill makes no attempt to “correct the text” and comments on the verse: “is there any secret thing with thee? any secret wisdom and knowledge which they were strangers to; or any secret way of conveying comfort to him they knew not of; or any secret sin in him, any Achan in the camp, that hindered him from receiving comfort, or put him upon slighting what was offered to him.” See also Adam Clarke’s commentary and Jamieson, Fausset and Brown on this verse. They all support the King James Bible’s reading.

Hosea 13:16 Hebrew: is held guilty LXX & KJV: become desolate

- Another ridiculous example of allegedly departing from the Hebrew text. The Hebrew word, like most Hebrew words, has multiple meanings. It is translated as "desolate" 5 times in the KJB and even though the NKJV here has "Samaria is held guilty", yet the NKJV and the NIV translate this same word as "desolate" in other places, as in Isaiah 24:6 and Ezekiel 6:6. Agreeing with the KJB's "Samaria shall become desolate" are the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, Youngs, the Geneva Bible, the New English Bible 1970, Luther's German bible 1545, the French Louis Segond, the Italian Diodati 1549 and the Nuovo Diodati 1991, the Spanish Reina Valera 1960 and 1995 "Samaria será desolada", and the KJV 21st Century 1994.

Agreeing in sense are 1395 Wycliffe "perish";1535 Coverdale, the 1568 Bishops bible, and the 1960 Bible in Basic English - "shall be made waste".

Proverbs 24:28 Hebrew: would you deceive? LXX & KJV: do not deceive

- Apparently the guy who made up this silly list has lost his mind. The NKJV reads like this self-professed "scholar" suggests, but agreeing with the King James Bible's "and deceive not with thy lips" are the NASB, NIV, Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV and Holman versions. Somebody is really desperate to try to find just one provable error in the Book.

Lamentations 1:8 Hebrew: became vile LXX & KJV: is removed

- This is another really lame and misleading attempt by the NKJV editors to undermine the authority of the King James Bible. The NKJV says: "Therefore she has BECOME VILE" and then they footnote "Septuagint and Vulgate read 'moved' or 'removed'. Again, this is not true. The Septuagint version says "therefore has she come into tribulation".

The Hebrew word used in Lamentations 1:8 is found only once but it comes directly from another Hebrew word which has multiple meanings including "to be removed, to wag, to make move, to bemoan, to shake, to be sorry, to take pity, to flee, and to skip for joy”. The NKJV itself translated this same word as "to move" and "to drive away" in Jeremiah 4:1; 50:3 and 8, and Psalm 36:11.

Not only does the King James Bible say in Lamentations 1:8 "Jerusalem hath grievously sinned; therefore she IS REMOVED" but so too do the following Bible versions. Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized bible, Darby, Green's literal MKJV, Webster's 1833, the Amplified bible 1987, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1549, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960 and 1995 “será removida”. The KJV 21st Century says "has become a wanderer" and even the Message says "she is an outcast".

Jeremiah 50:11 Hebrew: heifer threshing grass LXX & KJV: heifer at grass

- Well, if this is supposedly what the Hebrew text says, then a whole bunch of translators, both Jewish and Gentile have entirely missed it. "Heifer at grass" is the reading found in the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, the Hebrew Pub. Company 1936 translation, Complete Jewish Bible, Geneva bible, Bishops' bible, Wycliffe, Coverdale, Amplified bible, Green's literal, Youngs, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, Darby, Douay, the RSV, NRSV, and the ESV. Even the NASB admits that "heifer at grass" is another Hebrew reading.

Proverbs 19:24 Hebrew: bowl LXX & KJV: bosom

- Again, this Hebrew word has a couple of meanings, one being bosom and the other dish. Agreeing with the KJB are the Geneva Bible, Coverdale, Bishops' bible, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Italian Diodati 1649, the French Martin 1744, the Hebrew Publishing Company 1936 translation, the KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium bible 1998.

Ecclesiastes 9:14 Hebrew: snares LXX & KJV: bulwarks

- Again, this false information comes from the bogus NKJV footnotes where it says "snares" and then footnotes that bulwarks comes from the LXX, Syriac and Vulgate. Sorry NKJV guys, but the Hebrew word is translated here as 'bulwarks' by the Jewish translations of JPS 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible, the RV, ASV, Youngs, Darby, Douay, Amplified bible, Bishops' bible, Luther's German 1512 " Bollwerke", the Italian Diodati, Italian Riveduta 1927, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995 "baluartes", French Martin and Ostervald 1996 (forts), Green literal, Bishops' bible, Coverdale, and the KJV 21st Century.

Not even the NASB, NIV, RSV or ESV agree with the NKJV. They all say "seigeworks", which is much like the KJB’s “bulwarks” instead of the NKJV's 'snares'.

Isaiah 1:17 Hebrew: reprove the oppressor LXX & KJV: relieve the oppressor

- This is another case of blind stupidity trying to discredit the Authorized King James Bible. The guy missed what the verse says in the King James Bible and is completely wrong about what the reading should be. The KJB says "relieve the oppressed" not "relieve the oppressor".

The modern fake bibles can't even agree among themselves. The NKJV and NASB say "REPROVE the oppressor" while the NIV says "ENCOURAGE THE OPPRESSED" (which is more like the KJB). The NEB 1970 falls more in line with the KJB when it says "champion the oppressed", the Living Bible has "help the oppressed" and the ESV says "correct oppression". The Judaica Press Tanach has "strengthen the robbed" and even The Message has "help the down-and-out".

Agreeing with the Hebrew reading correctly translated in the King James Bible "RELIEVE the OPPRESSED" are the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Complete Jewish Bible, Bishops's, Coverdale, the Geneva Bible, the Revised Version, American Standard Version, Darby, Youngs, Hebrew Names Bible, Douay, the NRSV, and the Spanish Reina Valera.

Speaking frankly, the guy who put together this bogus list of alleged errors in the King James Bible is an idiot (See original Greek;-) who has no inerrant Bible in any language to give or recommend to anyone. “Idiot” of course in the literal Greek meaning of the word, that is, one who is ignorant and follows his own peculiar ways. All he has are his own personal opinions and preferences along with a massive dollop of misinformation and outright lies which he uses in his vain attempts to overthrow God's time tested and always true inerrant words of God - the King James Holy Bible.

Get a copy. Read it and believe every word of it. You will never go wrong.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/

Will Kinney

[stephanos]

Thank you Will. Your work is always appreciated.

Much Love in Christ Jesus,
Stephen

[Will Kinney]

I brother. Glad to hear the article is of some benefit in defending God's pure words. There is one minor correction to be made. It is only the word "spoken" that is not found in the Hebrew texts in Job 15:11, where the nkjv has added it and changed the meaning. There is a word there that can mean "thing, matter, or word". The KJB has it as "secret THING" and it is of course correct.

Praise God for His precious words of truth and grace,

Will K

I am the "man named Brian Tegart" that Brandplucked refers to in the post above. Brandplucked's post was a side tangent from a more important discussion we were having (which he alludes to in the post above), and for some reason he posted his reply on several boards. He says "A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing!" A man named Will Kinney has yet to explain to us why that's a problem because he believes the exact same thing about the first 80% of church history. What he is really opposing is not my position on no complete and inerrant translation, but rather my reluctance to accept the extra-Biblical unauthoritative idea that things changed doctrinally in 1611. I have explained why I don't accept this (or any extra-Biblical doctrine), and he has yet to explain why I should (or why he does). This is the fundamental problem with the KJV-only position, and the problem he is avoiding. Anyone interested is invited to view the history and participate in the whole discussion by visiting the Bible Version Discussion Board.

God bless,
Brian

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

I am the "man named Brian Tegart" that Brandplucked refers to in the post above.

He says "A man named Brian Tegart openly and unabashedly admits that he does not believe there ever was, much less is now, such a thing as a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible. In fact, he comes right out and tells us that the Bible does not teach that there would BE such a thing!"
Brian

Hi Brian. Let's take this one step at a time. First, is my statement concerning what you personally believe about a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible accurate? Is it true that you do not believe that such a thing exists now or ever did exist?

No fancy footwork please. Just a straight Yes or, if a No, then a brief explanation would be appreciated.

Thanks,

Will K

Will, I'm not going to duplicate the same discussion all over the internet. Please continue the discussion where it started ( http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...ic/4202?page=2 ), I am more than willing to answer your questions there, and am still waiting for you to answer mine.

God bless,
Brian

[Will Kinney]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Will, I'm not going to duplicate the same discussion all over the internet. Please continue the discussion where it started ( http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...ic/4202?page=2 ), I am more than willing to answer your questions there, and am still waiting for you to answer mine.

God bless,
Brian

No way Brian. I gave up on you guys over there. Too many of you piling on your garbage and not really wanting answers. Your buddies over there bring up one question after another. I answer a question and they don't even acknowledge it. Instead they post what they think is another error.

Unbound wanted proof that your silly claim about the KJB rejecting the Hebrew texts was bogus. I provided it and he didn't say Boo. I also noticed that you never acknowledged your laundry list was just a bunch of unfounded nonsense. I just get tired of dealing with all you bible agnostics and have a life outside the internet.

If you want to keep discussing this with me, then address it here. Your call.

Will K

[MC1171611]

Originally Posted by BrianT

Will, I'm not going to duplicate the same discussion all over the internet. Please continue the discussion where it started ( http://bibleversiondiscussionboard.y...ic/4202?page=2 ), I am more than willing to answer your questions there, and am still waiting for you to answer mine.

God bless,
Brian

Translation: "Yes."

Ever notice how people whose only authority is themselves squirm when asked simple, straightforward questions? It's somewhat entertaining, taken in the right context.

Originally Posted by Will Kinney

No way Brian. I gave up on you guys over there. Too many of you piling on your garbage and not really wanting answers. Your buddies over there bring up one question after another. I answer a question and they don't even acknowledge it. Instead they post what they think is another error. Unbound wanted proof that your silly claim about the KJB rejecting the Hebrew texts was bogus. I provided it and he didn't say Boo.

I cannot control what other people post, or how they deal with other people's posts. All I do is allow discussion, and try and keep the nastiness to a minimum. As for saying boo, during our discussion you didn't say boo about a great deal of my comments and questions. If you want to give up on posting on that board, you could have at least had the courtesy to let me know you were abandoning our conversation instead of spamming your reply (containing my full name) to several message boards (including this one) without telling me.

I also noticed that you never acknowledged your laundry list was just a bunch of unfounded nonsense.

Perhaps you missed where I said "You are correct I have not yet checked into that list myself. I am currently traveling and do not have access to my library or my notes. However, I will look into those examples in more detail for myself when I return home. However, I see that Brandplucked said of Gen 41:56 "Well the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV, ESV, NIV, 1917, 1936 all translated it the same way as the KJB." He says similar about Jeremiah 50:11. I will try to provide more legitimate ones at a future date, but his comment indicates that he agrees that the KJV does follow the LXX over the Masoretic in at least these two instances - which was what he asked for."

If you want to keep discussing this with me, then address it here. Your call.

Very well, if you refuse to discuss things there, I will continue it here with you. But I ask that you keep the discussion here and not start spamming your replies and my name all over the place again. Let's begin....

Let's take this one step at a time. First, is my statement concerning what you personally believe about a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible accurate? Is it true that you do not believe that such a thing exists now or ever did exist?

No fancy footwork please. Just a straight Yes or, if a No, then a brief explanation would be appreciated.

You already know the answer. Near the beginning of our discussion you said, "you have to admit that the end result is that you do not have a complete, inspired and inerrant Bible in any language and you deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now." I replied, "it is logically contradictory to on one hand claim the Bible is the only source of doctrine, while on the other hand making doctrinal claims (about the Bible, Mary, anything) that are not found in the Bible. So yes, I 'deny the doctrine of an inerrant Bible composed of 66 books as having ever existed and certainly not now'". I deny that doctrine, because that doctrine is not found in the Bible. You then said "I at least want to thank you for being upfront about the fact that you do not believe in an inerrant Bible."

I then started asking (for 3.5 pages worth of replies) for you to explain WHY you believe it - WHY you believe an extra-Biblical doctrine while claiming the Bible is the only source of doctrine. I asked you WHY it's a problem for me to believe this when you believe the exact same thing about the first 80% of church history. You talked about a "prophecy" about the KJV, but you never explained how that answers my question, nor answered my follow up questions and points about that either. You kept saying "Good questions", but you didn't answer the heart of the matter. Are you willing to answer the questions here, or am I wasting my time?

[PB1789]

Brian Tegert--- Yes! ... you are wasting your time and the Bandwidth of this website.

If you don't believe that The One Who said: "Let There Be light! And there was light." --- Can preserve His Written Word over the many centuries, and that we humans can believe in His inerrant/true/faithful/ Matthew 5:18 kinda Bible... Then,,, even though we have never met (to my knowledge), Ima thinkin' that you need to do some prayin' and get squared away with The Lord.

See Brian, it's like this; A cow says "Mooo" and gives milk. Dogs bark at the Mailman, and chew on your leather shoes. Christians trust in The Lord, and believe His Word! A Christian would not go around trying to pick apart/sow seeds of doubt concerning the contents of our Bible on an internet site where any heathen/pagan/atheist/agnostic/communist/sex-perve can get ideas to bolster their UNbelief.

{ Will Kinney: Hope you don't mind my insertion into the thread.... Don't know why some folks come over to a website titled "AV 1611.com," if they don't hold to the AV/KJ... ?? }