{"id":1686,"date":"2017-06-18T15:57:43","date_gmt":"2017-06-18T19:57:43","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/?p=1686"},"modified":"2018-06-04T07:18:46","modified_gmt":"2018-06-04T11:18:46","slug":"five-questions-for-king-james-only-believers-part-two","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/?p=1686","title":{"rendered":"Five Questions for King James Only Believers\u2014Part Two"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"

The Greek version of the Old Testament, called the Septuagint, is regularly criticized by King James Onlyists, however, its text often (not always) more accurate with New Testament quotations than the Masoretic Text.<\/p><\/div>\n

In the first post of this series<\/a>, I mentioned that I had five sincere questions to address to King James Onlyists (KJOs). These are Christians who believe the King James Version is the only inspired version of Scripture, and that believers should refrain from using any other translation. In this post, we will look at questions two and three.<\/p>\n

As I mentioned in the first post, I understand this can be an extremely sensitive issue. I will do my best to be kind in how I address these issues. Also, please do not view these posts as a shot at those who are better classified as “King James Preferred” or “Only King James.” These are individuals who prefer to use the King James Version over any other Bible, but they do not condemn those who use different translations as do many KJOs.<\/p>\n

The first question asked KJOs where the Bible ever claimed that God would preserve His word for us in an English version of Scripture that would be translated in 1611. The Bible doesn’t say anything like this, so the KJO cannot prove their position from Scripture, and the two main Bible passages they use to support their view do not support their view. So let’s move to my second question.<\/p>\n

Question 2: Is it a sin to use a Bible that has mistakes?<\/strong><\/p>\n

Surely all Christians would agree that it would be ideal if each language had a Bible version without mistakes in it, but this is simply not true to reality. Some KJOs have gone as far as saying that a person is not even saved if someone used an NIV while sharing the gospel with them. This is false and is akin to adding works to the gospel message. The gospel message of Christ\u2019s sacrificial death on the Cross for our sins and His subsequent burial and Resurrection can be found in the NIV, NASB, ESV, or practically any other Bible translation. Romans 10:9 does not teach (not even in the KJV) that if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised Him from the dead AND that you must learn this from the King James Version of the Bible, then you will be saved.<\/p>\n

But here\u2019s the question that KJOs must wrestle with. Is it sinful to use a Bible that has errors in it? For the sake of argument, since the NIV tends to be the primary target of KJOs, let\u2019s assume the NIV has errors. Would it be sinful to read it or teach from it? There\u2019s a huge dilemma for the KJO here. Notice the question is not, \u201cWould it be ideal to read\u2026?\u201d or \u201cWould it be preferable to read\u2026?\u201d The question is about whether or not it is sinful to use a Bible with an error in it.<\/p>\n

\"\"

If a scribe made a mistake while copying a book of the Bible, would it be sinful for a person to use that copy of Scripture? Image from www.reponsesbio.com<\/p><\/div>\n

If the KJO says, \u201cYes, it is sinful to use a Bible with errors in it,\u201d then we ask if it was sinful for Jesus to use a Bible that contradicts the KJV, which in the mind of the KJO would mean that Christ\u2019s Bible had errors in it. Since we agree that Jesus never sinned, then it obviously would not have been sinful for Jesus to use a Bible with errors.<\/p>\n

Many people believe Jesus and His disciples used the Septuagint, the Greek translation of the Old Testament. Many KJOs object to this point and claim that the Septuagint was not finished until after the Lord\u2019s ministry, but we\u2019ll see in this and the next point how this objection is irrelevant. There are numerous examples where a New Testament quotation of the Old Testament matches the wording in the Septuagint but disagrees with the wording of the Masoretic Hebrew text, which is what the King James (and other English translations) is based on. It\u2019s also possible that they used an older Hebrew version (or even Aramaic) that agreed with the Septuagint in these places. So if the King James is perfect, it would mean that a Bible contradicting it, like the one used by Jesus and His disciples, would be in error. And if it is sinful to use a Bible with errors, then Jesus was not the sinless Son of God who died for our sins. (The next point will demonstrate conclusively that Jesus and the disciples used a Bible that contradicts the King James Bible.)<\/p>\n

Now if the King James Onlyist says, \u201cNo, it is not sinful to use a Bible with errors in it,\u201d then we simply ask why they make such a huge deal out of people using the NIV or other translations. It\u2019s one thing to encourage someone to use a Bible that may be a better translation so that they might avoid errors, but it\u2019s entirely different to condemn a person or an entire congregation because they do not use the King James.<\/p>\n

Question 3: Why is the King James Bible missing verses or parts of verses?<\/strong><\/p>\n

This argument is often made by KJOs against other Bible translations. Because modern translations of the New Testament are usually based on a critical text (composed after taking into consideration the data from thousands of fragments and manuscripts) instead of the Textus Receptus<\/em> (\u201cReceived Text\u201d used by translators of the King James), there are some differences. At times, it seems like the newer translations have removed verses. For example, look up Acts 8:37 in the NIV, ESV, or other newer translations. KJOs cry foul and claim that these Bibles have corrupted God\u2019s Word by removing crucial information. Of course, this argument could be turned around on the KJO and ask why the King James added verses (the point of our next question).<\/p>\n

\"\"

I snapped a picture of this bumper sticker that perfectly illustrates the misguided view of KJOs.<\/p><\/div>\n

For the most part, the newer versions are the result of sincere attempts to faithfully translate the original text, and these so-called missing verses do not appear in many of the ancient manuscripts, particularly those generally considered to be older and more reliable. Nevertheless, most Bibles still include them in some sort of textual note or footnote. So the NIV and ESV still have Acts 8:37 in them, you just might need to check the notes on the page to see it. The translators are not engaged in a conspiracy to remove key theological concepts. If they were, they\u2019ve done a lousy job of it since they still include the details in notes and those details taught from these so-called missing verses can be found elsewhere in nearly every case.<\/p>\n

That being said, there are passages in which we can be certain the KJV is missing details. It isn\u2019t that the King James translators deliberately skipped details; it\u2019s that the texts they worked from were incomplete. Here are two crystal clear examples of the KJV missing key parts of verses.<\/p>\n

Missing Angels<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

The author of Hebrews frequently quoted from the Old Testament. While expressing the superiority of the Son of God over the angels, the writer states,<\/p>\n

And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the word, he saith, “And let all the angels of God worship Him.\u201d (Hebrews 1:6, quotation marks added around OT citation)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So here we have an inspired New Testament text quoting from the inspired Old Testament text (\u201cAnd let all the angels of God worship Him.\u201d). But here\u2019s the problem: that verse does not appear in the Old Testament of the KJV, so how can the KJV be infallible if it records the quotation of an Old Testament passage that does not appear in the KJV Old Testament?<\/p>\n

Some point to Psalm 97:7 (\u201cworship Him, all you gods\u201d) as the verse being quoted, but despite their similarities in theme, there are some differences. There is one verse that is an exact match for the quotation from Hebrews 1:6, and that\u2019s Deuteronomy 32:43. Here is how the verse reads in the KJV:<\/p>\n

Rejoice, O ye nations, with his people
\nFor he will avenge the blood of his servants,
\nAnd will render vengeance to his adversaries,
\nAnd will be merciful unto his land, and to his people. (Deuteronomy 32:43, KJV)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice there is nothing in the verse about the angels of God being instructed to worship God, at least not in the KJV. Here\u2019s how it reads in the Septuagint:<\/p>\n

Rejoice, ye heavens, with Him,
\nAnd let all the angels of God worship Him<\/strong>;
\n<\/em>Rejoice ye Gentiles, with His people,
\nAnd let all the sons of God strengthen themselves in Him,
\nFor He will avenge the blood of His sons,
\nAnd He will render vengeance, and recompense justice to His enemies,
\nAnd will reward them that hate Him;
\nAnd the Lord shall purge the land of His people.
\n(Deuteronomy 32:43, Brenton LXX, emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Notice that the second line is an exact match of what the author of Hebrews quoted: \u201cLet all the angels of God worship Him.\u201d So if the KJV is God\u2019s perfect translation, then why is it missing these words in Deuteronomy 32:43?<\/p>\n

Besides the fact that the author of Hebrews quotes this passage, there is another strong argument to support the claim that the Septuagint\u2019s version is consistent with the original. Notice how it maintains parallelism between the various lines of the text, but the parallelism so common in Hebrew is missing from the KJV (and most other English translations too, since they often follow the Masoretic Text as well\u2014the ESV and NRSV come closer to the Septuagint).<\/p>\n

But this is not the only verse in Deuteronomy 32 that has been altered. There is considerable textual evidence to show that Deuteronomy 32:8 has also been changed from the \u201csons of God\u201d to the \u201csons of Israel.\u201d The Septuagint and two fragments from the Dead Sea Scrolls match the former reading and give a clue as to why a later scribe might alter the text to something less offensive. By removing or changing the wording, the text would no longer mention entities other than God who are identified as gods<\/em>, which may well explain the reason for the change in v. 43. The \u201cangels of God\u201d from the Septuagint is a translation of the Greek uioi theou<\/em> (\u201csons of God\u201d), a Greek translation of the term used in Genesis 6:1\u20134, Job 1:6, 2:1, and 38:7 to refer to angels.<\/p>\n

Missing Cures for the Blind<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

A similar motivation might be seen in another example of a missing section of a verse in the KJV. In Luke 4:17 Jesus read from the book of Isaiah while He was in Nazareth\u2019s synagogue:<\/p>\n

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
\nBecause He hath anointed me
\nTo preach the gospel to the poor;
\nHe hath sent me to heal the brokenhearted,
\nTo preach deliverance to the captives
\nAnd recovery of sight to the blind<\/strong>,
\n<\/em>To set at liberty them that are bruised,
\nTo preach the acceptable year of the Lord .<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

This passage of Scripture is found in Isaiah 61:1\u20132.<\/p>\n

The Spirit of the Lord God is upon me,
\nBecause the Lord hath anointed me
\nTo preach good tidings unto the meek;
\nHe hath sent me to bind up the brokenhearted,
\nTo proclaim liberty to the captives,
\nAnd the opening of the prison to them that are bound;
\nTo proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

\"\"

Jesus healing a blind man as shown in the Christ, Cross, and Consummation exhibit at the Creation Museum<\/a>.<\/p><\/div>\n

The difference in wording is largely due to the translation process. Isaiah has been translated directly from Hebrew to English, while Luke has been translated from Hebrew into Greek (or possibly from Hebrew to Jesus speaking Aramaic to Luke recording in Greek) and then into English. However, this fact cannot explain the truth that an entire line is missing in the Masoretic Text of Isaiah 61:1\u2014\u201cAnd recovery of sight to the blind.\u201d<\/p>\n

Here\u2019s the dilemma for the KJO: Luke 4:17 in the KJV has Jesus reading from Isaiah 61:1\u20132, but the Isaiah passage does not include a key phrase Jesus quoted, at least not in the KJV or the Masoretic Text on which it is based. If the KJV is the perfect, inspired, inerrant version that God has preserved for us, then why did Jesus quote something that isn\u2019t there? Would you like to guess where this wording does appear? If you guessed the Septuagint, then you would be correct. Here\u2019s what it says in those same verses:<\/p>\n

The Spirit of the Lord is upon me,
\nBecause he has anointed me;
\nHe has sent me to preach glad tidings to the poor,
\nTo heal the broken in heart,
\nTo proclaim liberty to the captives,
\nAnd recovery of sight to the blind<\/strong>;
\n<\/em>To declare the acceptable year of the Lord.
\n(Isaiah 61:1\u20132, Brenton LXX, emphasis added)<\/p><\/blockquote>\n

So why does this wording show up in the Septuagint but not in the Masoretic Text? One of the most compelling reasons is that at some point after the life of Jesus a Jewish scribe removed the line from Isaiah for a very specific reason\u2014to weaken the Christian\u2019s case that Jesus was the Messiah.<\/p>\n

How would the removal of a reference to healing the blind weaken the Christian\u2019s case? When you think of all Jesus\u2019 miracles recorded in the Gospels, many of them have a corresponding miracle in the Old Testament. For example, by God\u2019s power Elijah raised the dead (1 Kings 17:19\u201323), Elisha multiplied food to feed a large group (2 Kings 4:42\u201344) and healed a leper (2 Kings 5). But one particular type of miracle that Jesus repeatedly performed really stood out among the Jews\u2014the recovery of sight to the blind.<\/p>\n

Consider the strong reaction of the Jewish leaders when Jesus healed the man who had been born blind. They interrogated the man and his parents. The formerly blind man seemed incredulous that the leaders were so upset about the healing, and he said, \u201cSince the world began it has been unheard of that anyone opened the eyes of one who was born blind\u201d (John 9:32). The Old Testament records the restoration of sight to those temporarily blinded (2 Kings 6:8\u201323), but there is no example of the healing of a person who was born blind. When John the Baptist sent disciples to ask Jesus if He truly was the Messiah, Jesus told them to tell John about the things they had heard and seen, and the first evidence He mentioned was that \u201cthe blind see\u201d (Matthew 11:5).<\/p>\n

So it\u2019s possible that the text was changed by a Jewish scribe to remove a very clear indicator that Jesus was the Messiah. There are other possible reasons for the variant readings of Isaiah 61:1, but whatever the reason for the difference, the fact remains that the KJV, like many other Bibles based on the Masoretic Text, is missing a line in Isaiah 61:1.<\/p>\n

Looking Ahead<\/strong><\/p>\n

We have one more post in this series, Part three is available here<\/a> and focuses on the following questions:<\/p>\n

– Why does the King James Version add verses or parts of verses?
\n–\u00a0Instead of attacking fellow believers, and sometimes lying about them and other Bible translations, why don\u2019t you use that same energy and zeal to share the Gospel and love your fellow believers?<\/p>\n

Once again, I will attempt to maintain a spirit of gentleness on this topic, and I ask that all who comment on this series carefully read each post and then keep the comments civil.<\/p>\n

If you missed part one in this series, which asks where God promised to preserve His word in the 1611 version of the King James, you can find it by clicking here<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Thanks for reading!<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

In the first post of this series, I mentioned that I had five sincere questions to address to King James Onlyists (KJOs). These are Christians who believe the King James Version is the only inspired version of Scripture, and that … Continue reading →<\/span><\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":1688,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[22,67,23],"tags":[69,6,75,37,25],"class_list":["post-1686","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-apologetics","category-interpretation","category-theology","tag-apologetics","tag-bible","tag-king-james-only","tag-new-testament","tag-old-testament"],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1686","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcomments&post=1686"}],"version-history":[{"count":9,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1686\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":1791,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/posts\/1686\/revisions\/1791"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=\/wp\/v2\/media\/1688"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fmedia&parent=1686"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Fcategories&post=1686"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/midwestapologetics.org\/blog\/index.php?rest_route=%2Fwp%2Fv2%2Ftags&post=1686"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}