A Critique of George Lujack’s Critique of the King James Only Position

I truly enjoy critiquing other people’s critiques.  I probably enjoy it a little too much.  Gott hilf mir.

Today we will look at a paper by George Lujack.  This man is a New Yorker, who follows Messianic Judaism although he does not go so far as to reject the Apostle Paul.  Given enough time, either he or most of his followers will get there as that is the logical terminus of Hebrew Roots doctrine.

The guy seems like a prolific author and some of his articles are somewhat decent.  However, on many topics he should just keep quite.  Because when he tries to comment, he makes himself look dumb.

For an example of this, we shall look at his article about the King James issue.  It can be found here:

Click to access IS-THE-KING-JAMES-BIBLE-THE-PURE-PERFECT-PRESERVED-WORD-OF-GOD-FOR-THE-ENGLISH-SPEAKING-PEOPLE-2.pdf

We shall make our comments in BOLD.

IS THE KING JAMES BIBLE THE PURE – PERFECT – PRESERVED WORD OF GOD FOR THE ENGLISH-SPEAKING PEOPLE?
By George Lujack
Some Christians believe in the inerrancy and infallibility of the King James Bible as the pure -perfect – preserved word of God for the English-speaking people. ME, I DO. This article will discuss the origins of the King James Bible Only doctrine, present irrefutable proofs that the King James Bible is not perfectly translated into English, and will declare the King James Bible Only doctrine to be false.

ORIGIN OF THE ‘KING JAMES VERSION BIBLE ONLY’ DOCTRINE
Many persons since the early 1600’s have proclaimed that the English people must read the King James Version Bible ONLY, being that it is the inspired, perfect, preserved, pure word of God for the English-speaking people, and all other English translations are inaccurate and / or inferior. This doctrinal belief originated from King James himself.  NICE THAT YOU DIDN’T TRY THE USUAL ROUTE WHERE CRITICS CLAIM THAT DOCTOR RUCKMAN OR 7TH DAY ADVENTISTS INVENTED IT.  I WOULD TEND TO AGREE WITH HIM HERE.  Bishops of the Church of England, under orders of King James, exercising ‘ecclesiastical authority and jurisdiction’ wrote many articles and promoted the distribution and placement of the Authorized Version of the King James Bible in the English churches and elsewhere. It was King James, through the Church of England, who first introduced the concept that the King James Bible translators were inspired by God and that only the Authorized Version King James Bible was inerrant and infallible [1]. I GUESS THE QUESTION WOULD BE: CAN THEY PROVE IT THEN?

KING JAMES BIBLE TRANSLATORS WERE COMMISSIONED BY KING JAMES, THEY
WERE NOT INSPIRED TRANSLATORS OF GOD
2 TIMOTHY 3:16: All Scripture is given by inspiration of God…IT WOULD BE INTERESTING IF HE GAVE THE WHOLE CONTEXT HERE…
The Scriptures, given to us in their original Hebrew and Greek languages, are the inspired word of God. CHAPTER AND VERSE?  I THINK THEY ARE INSPIRED, THE QUESTION IS: WAS ANYTHING ELSE GIVEN BY INSPIRATION? The King James Bible is not the original written Scriptures TRUE and was not given to us by the inspiration of God, NOT PROVEN but is a translation of His given inspired word to the English language TRANSLATIONS CAN BE INSPIRED.  LOOK AT ALL THE OT QUOTES IN THE NT. God directly inspired the prophets and apostles to write the Scriptures. King James commissioned translators to translate the Scriptures into English. OK, SO THEY DIDN’T KNOW THEY WERE INSPIRED, NEITHER DID PAUL I COR 7:12
THE KING JAMES BIBLE IS WRITTEN IN OLD ARCHAIC ENGLISH
There are many Christian ministers who believe that archaic old English is a more godly language than modern English. THAT IS A MATTER OF OPINION.  THEY ARE ENTITLED TO IT.  They like to appear more holy when preaching in the pulpits in old English, ASSUMPTION saying King James phrases such as, “Thus saith the Lord,” instead of “Thus says the Lord,” or “Our Father which art in heaven, Hallowed be thy name,” instead of “Our Father who is in heaven, Holy is Your name.” OR MAYBE THEY THINK IT IS MORE ACCURATE.  IT’S BETTER THAN PEOPLE WHO THINK THEY ARE HOLY BECAUSE THEY ARE PARSING A GREEK NOUN…Old English is not a holy language, nor is it any holier than modern English. I WOULD HAVE TO DISAGREE THERE ALTHOUGH WE COULD NEVER PROVE IT ONE WAY OR THE OTHER.  MODERN ENGLISH IS DEGRADED AND FEW WOULD ARGUE THAT POINT… To believe that old English is the language of God, NOT SURE ANYONE CLAIMS THAT JUST LIKE FEW WOULD CLAIM THAT GREEK IS THE LANGUAGE OF GOD, ALTHOUGH HE DID USE GREEK NONETHELESS  one is basically worshiping the old English language as being of God. THAT IS FAULTY LOGIC, BRO.  NO ONE WORSHIPS A LANGUAGE.  STRAWMAN. God first communicated to Adam in the Garden of Eden, in the language He gave Adam at that time, then later on to Moses in Hebraic. WHAT ABOUT ARAMAIC AND GREEK?  LEFT OUT SOME INFO DIDN’T YOU? The Scriptures do not record God ever communicating with man in any form of English. THIS PROVES NOTHING.  King James Bible Only ministers communicate to their congregations in the confusing old English language in a similar manner that Catholic priests do when conducting their Catholic mass while speaking in Latin. THIS IS THE MOST ABSURD SENTENCE IN THE ARTICLE.  FIRST OFF, KING JAMES ENGLISH IS NOT OLD ENGLISH, TO CLAIM OTHERWISE IS TO MAKE YOURSELF LOOK STUPID.  LOOK UP AN EXAMPLE OF OE ON THE INTERNET AND YOU WILL SEE THAT NOT ONLY IS IT HARDER TO UNDERSTAND, IT IS ANOTHER LANGUAGE ALTOGETHER.  KING JAMES ENGLISH IS OLD FASHIONED IN AMERICA, BUT THAT DOES NOT MEAN IT IS ANOTHER LANGUAGE LIKE LATIN.  POOR LUJACK IS WAY OFF BASE HERE.  The Catholic congregations are confused, and have no idea of what their priest is saying, because their priest is speaking in a language that they cannot understand.  PEOPLE KNOW WHAT I AM SAYING THE PULPIT AT ALL TIMES.  Many Catholics are deceived into believing that Latin is a holy mysterious language that their priest is using to communicate with God. Likewise, King James Bible Only preachers use an old form of English that modern English-speaking persons have difficulty understanding NOW HE IS BACKTRACKING, confusing and deceiving them into believing that old English is the holy language of God. THE KING JAMES BIBLE DOES NOT USE OLD ENGLISH.  FACT.

WORSHIPING THE KING OF KINGS OR THE KING JAMES BIBLE?
PSALM 12:6-7 (KJV):
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.
King James Bible Only advocates often cite and misapply Psalm 12:6-7 to uphold their doctrine that God preserved His word perfectly in the King James Bible for the English-speaking people. The words of YHWH (the Lord) WHO IS YHWH?  HE IS A PAGAN GOD AND A 19TH AND 20TH CENTURY INVENTION.  ASK THE JEWS WHAT HIS NAME IS, THEY WILL TELL YOU JEHOVAH, JUST LIKE THE KING JAMES.  were preserved in their original Hebrew [2] and Greek [3] language, THE TEXT DOESN’T SAY THAT EITHER. from the generation in which they were written, and they will be preserved forever. NOW WE HAVE A DIFFERENT ISSUE.  IF THE SCRIPTURES ARE PRESERVED IN THE GREEK AND HEBREW, THEN WHICH ONE?  LUJACK NEVER SAYS WHICH MANUSCRIPTS ARE INSPIRED, THEY DISAGREE WITH EACH OTHER IN TENS OF THOUSANDS OF PLACES.  The Scriptures have been kept, copied exactly word-for-word throughout the generations, in the Hebrew and Greek languages that they were written in, have been preserved to this day, and they will be preserved forever. POINT TO IT THEN.  HE NEVER DOES.  These verses do not in any way indicate that the words of YHWH (the Lord) were to be preserved in English, in the King James Bible only. IF LUJACK WERE TO STUDY THE ISSUE, HE WOULD SEE THAT IT POINTS TO THE KING JAMES WHEN THE TEXT SAYS, “PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES”  THERE ARE NO SEVEN PURIFICATIONS IF ONLY THE GREEK AND HEBREW ARE INSPIRED.  The King James English Bible was completed in 1611. The King James is a translation of God’s pure words. God’s actual pure words were preserved from the generation in which they were written, not since 1611. THE ISSUE IS NOT “GENERATION” IT IS “FOR EVER”  Scripture does not declare that God commanded King James of England to translate His Scriptures or that His word was to be preserved perfectly in English by God inspired translators commissioned by King James.  IT ALSO DOESN’T SAY THERE SHOULD ONLY BE 66 BOOKS IN THE BIBLE.  The King James Version is not a perfect English translation of the Scriptures, nor is there any perfect English translation. Many terms or words used in the original Scriptures are currently unknown, yet they are part of the original Scriptures. PROVE THAT THE KING JAMES TRANSLATORS DIDN’T KNOW THOSE WORDS… HE CAN’T.  Translators therefore cannot translate words that they do not know, and have often best guessed at translating them in times past. Many modern English speaking people who use a King James Bible also need to use an early modern English dictionary to understand their KJ Bible when casually reading it. NOW THE KING JAMES ISN’T OLD ENGLISH, IT IS EARLY MODERN ENGLISH.  BIG DIFFERENCE.  ALSO, THERE ARE ARCHAIC WORDS IN ANY LARGE BOOK INCLUDING THE MORNING NEWSPAPER, DOES THAT MEAN WE SHOULD DUMP THE NEWSPAPER?  The King James Bible is hardly a perfect English translation for modern day English speaking persons.  OPINION.  HE IS ARGUING FROM EMOTION WITHOUT ANY FACTS.  Although there are numerous minor errors in the King James Bible, there are no errors that are so major as to throw believers off course from God, THERE ARE IN THE MODERN VERSIONS THAT HE PROMOTES.  or cause people to lose their salvation, THERE IS A GOOD EXAMPLE, HE THINKS A CHRISTIAN CAN LOSE HIS SALVATION.  but to proclaim that the King James Bible is a 100% pure perfect word-for-word inerrant English translation is a misguided belief and false doctrine. SO DO I LOSE MY SALVATION FOR PREACHING A HERESY?  The King James Bible is a good translation, but not a perfect one.
NO FOUNDATIONAL BASIS FOR CLAIMING THE KING JAMES VERSION PERFECT
The King James Bible was not the first bible published in English. The Geneva Bible was first published in 1560. WYCLIFFE PUBLISHED FIRST.  THEN TYNDALE… HAS HE EVEN LOOKED AT THE INFORMATION?  The King James was later released in 1611. The Geneva Bible was the first bible taken to America and was used by the Pilgrims and Puritans. IT WAS TAKEN FIRST, BUT IT WAS NEVER USED AS MUCH AS THE KJB.  Where in Scripture is it written that the King James Bible is the official God-preserved bible for the English-speaking people? UNNECESSARY BURDEN OF TRUTH.  IT IS A BIBLICAL DOCTRINE, PUTTING MUCH INFORMATION TOGETHER, MUCH LIKE THE TRINITY, WHICH LUJACK ALSO REJECTS NOT SURPRISINGLY On what basis, other than the authority of King James, do King James Bible Only advocates proclaim that only the Authorized King James Version Bible is the pure, perfect, and preserved word of God for the English-speaking people? IF YOU DON’T KNOW THE CLAIMS, WHY DON’T YOU RESEARCH IT BEFORE YOU WRITE AN ARTICLE?  ON THE FLIP SIDE, ON WHAT BASIS DOES LUJACK PROCLAIM THAT ONLY THE ORIGINAL GREEK AND HEBREW WRITINGS ARE PURE, PERFECT, AND PRESERVED?  Why the King James and not the Geneva or some other English bible translation?  IF YOU DON’T KNOW, READ VANCE’S BOOK AGAIN AND OTHER LIKE HIM.  

THE KING JAMES BIBLE HAS LEAPING BEETLES AND UNICORNS
LEVITICUS 11:21-22 (KJV):
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.

The ‘beetle’ is a translation error in the King James Bible. No species of beetle has special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth. IT DIDN’T SAY THAT, IT SAID “LEAP” Beetles are not the same kind of insects that locusts, bald locusts, and grasshoppers are. STILL INSECTS King James Bible Only defenders sometimes cite the click beetle to explain the beetle error translation. It is estimated that there are about 450,000 different types of beetles in the world. Out of all of those beetles, there are a few that can leap. The click beetle, if inverted on its back, can propel itself without using its legs to return to its feet. The click beetle uses elastic energy in its body and releases it abruptly to launch itself in the air [4]. IT SEEMS LIKE LUJACK ANSWERS HIS OWN QUESTION.  WHAT EXACTLY IS THE PROBLEM?  
The insect, mistranslated ‘beetle’ in the King James Bible, and all the related insects after its kind, are described as having special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth.  THE TEXT DOESN’T SAY ALL THAT, IT SAYS “LEAP” Click beetles do not have these type of jumping legs. The King James insect mistranslated ‘beetle’ and ALL beetles after their kind’ do not correctly fit the description of the leaping insects of Leviticus 11:21-22. No species of beetle has special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth with. The beetle translation error in the King James Bible was properly corrected to ‘cricket’ in the New King James Bible and is listed as cricket in most other English translated versions of Scripture.

NUMBERS 23:22 (KJV):
God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn.*
*Also: Numbers 24:8; Deuteronomy 33:17; Job 39:9-10; Psalm 22:21, 29:6, 92:10; Isaiah 34:7.
King James Bible Only defenders claim that ‘unicorn’ is not a mistranslation. IT IS OBVIOUSLY SOMETHING WE DON’T TALK ABOUT ANYMORE.  They defend the use of the term unicorn by saying that it is not the mythical horned horse-like creature, but it is instead a rhinoceros. UNICORN MEANS “ONE HORNED” THAT FITS THE INDIAN RHINOCEROS PERFECTLY.  The problem with that explanation is that it defies the very thing King James Bible Only defenders proclaim, namely that the King James Bible is the perfect translated word of God for the English-speaking people. IT CAN BE PERFECT AND HAVE A NAME FOR AN ANIMAL THAT WE DON’T USE ANYMORE IN AMERICA.  IT ISN’T WRITTEN ONLY FOR 21ST CENTURY AMERICANS.  IT’S WRITTEN TO THE WORLD.  Ask any English-speaking person what a unicorn is, even back in 1611, and the response would be that it is a mythical horned horse-like creature, not a rhinoceros. MAYBE, BUT IT SURE SEEMS LIKE AN ASSUMPTION. King James Bible Only defenders must translate unicorn to rhino to uphold their doctrine of the inerrancy of the King James Bible, because unicorn is not a proper English term for a rhino. WHY DOES IT HAVE TO BE PROPER?  HE IS REQUIRING SOMETHING THAT IS NOT NECESSARY.  AND IT ISN’T A “TRANSLATION” TO SAY THAT IT IS REFERRING TO A RHINO.  IF YOU THINK THAT, YOU DON’T KNOW WHAT A TRANSLATION IS… The unicorn translation error in the King James Bible is properly translated to an ox or wild ox in the New King James Bible and most other English translations. LUJACK IS GIVING THE MODERN VERSIONS WAY TOO MUCH GRACE, NO ONE KNOWS WHAT THAT ANIMAL IS, INCLUDING LUJACK.  There are many other, mostly minor, translation errors in the King James Bible that are far too numerous to list in this article that have been discovered and listed [5].  SORRY BUT THIS SEEMS LIKE A COP OUT… NAME THEM!
242
KING JAMES BIBLE ONLYISM – A CULT-LIKE BELIEF
King James Bible Only advocates share a cult-like misguided faith with the Roman Catholic Church. THAT IS RIDICULOUS, CATHOLICS FOLLOW THE EVER CHANGING WHIMS OF A MAN, WE FOLLOW A BOOK THAT HASN’T CHANGED IN OVER 400 YEARS.  HOW IS THAT THE SAME?  King James Bible Only advocates proclaim that the King James Bible commissioned translators were infallible NOPE, BUT JUST LIKE PAUL AND PETER, THEY WERE FALLIBLE, BUT THEY WERE USED BY GOD TO MAKE AN INFALLIBLE BOOK.  and produced a perfectly translated English version of the Scriptures.  The Catholic Church proclaims that its popes throughout the ages have been, and are, infallible.  Infallibility and perfection are attributes of God. The original Scriptures, inspired by God, are infallible, as only God is infallible. No translation of man, or any pope or clergyman, is infallible or perfect – as all men err. WHAT ABOUT PETER AND MATTHEW AND JAMES?    King James Only advocates sometimes rhetorically ask, “If the King James Version Bible is NOT the perfect translated word of God into English, then what version is?” This is a presumptive question, like asking, “When was the last time you beat your wife?” NO, IF THE TOPIC IS BIBLE VERSIONS, IT IS LEGITIMATE TO ASK WHAT VERSION IS PERFECT.  USE YOUR HEAD LUJACK.  to a man who has never harmed his wife. Catholics, when faced with the errors of Catholic teachings, defend their church by asking the same presumptive type question, “If the Catholic Church is not the one true church, then what church is?”  THIS IS CALLED FALSE EQUIVOCATION.  THESE QUESTIONS ARE DIFFERENT BUT NEITHER ARE HARD TO ANSWER.  There is no true, pure, perfect, preserved English translation of the Holy Scriptures, HE DOESN’T EVEN HAVE A PURE GREEK OR HEBREW TEXT… just as there is no one true apostolic Christian church that the Roman Catholic Church claims to be.  The Jews are God’s chosen people who were given His perfect word. The Tanakh (Old Testament) Scriptures were written in Hebrew WHICH TEXT? MASORETIC OR LENINGRAD TEXT OR THE ALEPPO TEXT?  and the B’rit Hadashah (New Testament) Scriptures books were written in either Greek or Hebrew WHICH ONE?  SINIATICUS, VATICANUS, BYZANTINE?  DOES HE NOT KNOW THERE ARE DIFFERENCES?  , have been copied word-for-word, and have been preserved. NOT WORD FOR WORD. Imperfect translators have translated His perfect preserved word into the English language and other languages. OK?????
King James translators were neither infallible nor perfect. TRUE, LIKE THE APOSTLE JOHN, BUT WHAT THEY PRODUCED WAS INFALLIBLE AND PERFECT.  God did preserve His perfect word, but His perfect word was not perfectly translated to English for the English-speaking people by King James translators. God’s perfect word was also not perfectly translated to the Arabic, Bulgarian, Chinese THIS IS A LANGUAGE FAMILY…, Croatian, Dutch, French, German, Hungarian, Indian, NOT A LANGUAGE Japanese, Korean, Latin, Moldavian, REALLY JUST ROMANIAN, Norwegian, Polish, Russian, Serbian, Spanish, Swedish, Swiss, SWISS IS NOT A LANGUAGE…Turkish, Ukrainian, Vietnamese, Welch, LIKE THE GRAPE JUICE?  HAHAHA. ALSO ALL PEOPLE IN WALES SPEAK ENGLISH. Yemeni,  ALSO CALLED “ARABIC” DUH… Zulu, or to any other written language of the world.

WHAT ENGLISH VERSION BIBLE SHOULD BELIEVERS USE?
The King James Bible is a good, but not perfect translation of the Holy Scriptures. The King James Bible (KJV) should be used in conjunction and cross-referenced with the New King James Bible (NKJV), the Halleluyah Scriptures (HSV), the Tree of Life Scriptures (TLV) and other good versions of Scripture when searching for the truth of God’s word.  PLEASE DON’T TAKE THIS MAN’S ADVICE.  WHEN YOU USE MULTIPLE VERSIONS, YOU MAKE YOURSELF GOD, THAT IS, YOU GET TO CHOOSE WHICH ONE IS RIGHT OR WRONG.  YOU ARE NOT GOD. YOU DON’T GET TO CHOOSE WHAT IS RIGHT OR WRONG.  PRAY AND FIND OUT WHICH VERSION IS GOD’S WORD.  THEN YOU DON’T HAVE TO CHOOSE.  IF YOU’RE HONEST, YOU’LL GET YOURSELF A KING JAMES.

7 thoughts on “A Critique of George Lujack’s Critique of the King James Only Position

  1. Funny to notice the link you refer to, a person saying the Kingg James Bible is the only true Bible, he himself uses an other version in his articles.

    People may not forget that in the 17th century not so many transcripts were found yet and that there was not always such a good knowledge of the original manuscripts. Also must we know that already certain doctrinal teachings had entered the group of religious ‘masters’ who wanted to be sure everything fitted their doctrines.

    Not only is no translation of man, or any pope or clergyman, infallible or perfect – as all men err, but always should we consider the use of certain words in context with the understanding and use of words at the time of publication.

    People always should see the big lines and also read between the lines, remembering the way of speech of the original pen-men (writers).

    You may not like it when people use at the same time different translations, but that is not a bad way to get an overall idea of what is being tried to tell in the Book of books. It is much better to use different Bible versions instead of holding all the time to one copy, and even dangerous when that translation would be a paraphrased Bible.

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I am going to assume that English is not your first language, so I think you are a little bit confused. I put the link up BECAUSE Lujack uses other versions. That is the whole point of the article and one of the main issues addressed by this blog.

      We most certainly do know more about manuscripts today than in 1611, and much more evidence has come out that the texts used by the King James translators is far superior to anything used by the modern versions today. If you have anything more specific to talk about, please say so. If you only know the generals of manuscript evidence, then please accept my general answer.

      You say, “all men err”. Do you think that the original authors of the Bible texts erred? I would think you would admit it, as do I. Peter was not sinless. But they did not err when they wrote down their manuscripts. I think the same is true of the King James translators and if you want my proofs, see my article about why the King James Bible is better than the originals.

      If you think that the multitude of versions is “not a bad way to get an overall idea of what is being tried to tell in the Book”, then you are sadly ignorant of the issue. The modern versions are based on different Greek texts than the King James (although a few others use these texts.) And beyond that is the all important issue of FINAL AUTHORITY. What is your final authority? If you think that using multiple bible versions and then using your brain to come up with the “real meaning”, then your final authority is you brain. There is not difference between you and an atheist. My final authority is my King James Bible sitting on my coffee table.

      So answer this: what is your final authority?

      Like

  2. EXCERPT:
    LEVITICUS 11:21-22 (KJV):
    Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth,

    The insect, mistranslated ‘beetle’ in the King James Bible, and all the related insects after its kind, are described as having special jointed hind jumping legs to leap upon the Earth.

    IT DIDN’T SAY THAT, IT SAID “LEAP”

    RESPONSE:
    Do beetles possess “legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth,”? Are not “legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth,” a reference to “special jointed hind jumping legs” that grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets have?

    You are IN DENIAL vakebiblia (mf1611), defender of the falsehood of KJVs inerrancy.

    Like

    1. Mat 23:24 – Ye blind guides, which strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel.

      Lugac’s best proof that there is not a Final Authority in writing on earth today: Beetles!

      Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s