More Christadelphian Foolishness About the King James Bible

Since the Christadelphians have continued to visit my blog, I have decided to spend more time demonstrating their lies and falsehoods.  I enjoy doing this and this blog is a hobby of mine so I will continue to indulge my vanity.

I have found a site organized by the Christadelphians with a series of questions and answers.  Of course, they address the King James Bible and the King James issue and so I have decided to copy it and critique it.  I will address the article that they link to in the future.  Something to look forward to…

Here is the original link:

http://bibleq.net/answer/5837/

Here is my critique in bold.

 

Is the King James Version the only true, unchanged version of the Bible?
Answered by Luke Buckler · 9 April 2013 · 4 Comments
No. In fact, there are a number of problems with the idea that the King James Version (KJV) is the ‘only true, unchanged version of the Bible’. The fact of the matter is that there are a number of problems with the idea that no Bible is the only true unchanged version of the Bible.  The main problem is that you unhesitatingly make God a liar in Ps 12:6,7, Is 40:8, Matt 23:35, etc… No big deal for a Christadelphian.

For one thing, the King James Version of the Bible has its own history of revision.1 For example, changes were made to the text in 1769 (the changes were mostly based on Estienne’s 1550 Greek New Testament), as well as an updating to modern (for that time) spelling and correction of printers’ errors. If I were to pick up an original 1611 and read it out loud, you would hear no difference between that and if I were to read the King James Bible on my desk.  The changes are about font and spelling changes.  No words change.  Another example of change is that modern versions of the KJV generally don’t include the Apocrypha, whereas the old KJV did. The King James translators did not consider the Apocrypha as anything except intertestamental history and they would have had not problem with their Bible being printed without the Apocrypha.  So what if I prefer to have a Bible without a man written commentary of the history between the testaments?  The Scripture is the same. So, it is not true to say that the KJV is unchanged. Over the years the KJV has changed. The KJV most use today is not the same as the one produced back in 1611. If the reader really thinks that the author has proven that there is a substantive difference and that we should believe in the alternative “nothing onlyism”, then he has only proven his lack of critical thinking ability.  The King James on my table is the final authority.  This author has no final authority, no different than an atheist.  

That is a historic problem with the idea that the KJV is the ‘the only true, unchanged version of the Bible’ — it has changed. The changes are only typesetting and spelling.  THE WORDS ARE THE SAME.  But there are also theological problems with the idea. For example, in Acts 2 God sanctions (to say the least) translation of his word. Huh? Really?The disciples were delivering God’s word in many different languages of the world, so that all of the people present could understand them in their own languages (Acts 2:1-11). The people who are receiving the word exclaim:

…we hear them declaring the wonders of God in our own tongues! [Acts 2:11]

The reason for this is that God loves the whole world (John 3:16) HaHa.  You just changed the text.  John 3:16 says, “loved” and you say “loves”.  YOU changed the words.  You have proven why King James Onlyism is such a crucial issue.  and his desire is for his message to go out into all the earth and for it to be understood by all people (Mat. 28:19; cf. Ps. 19:1-6). I think I would agree that mission work is important.  I am a missionary!  Just because mission work is important, doesn’t mean that God didn’t give us a perfect Bible.  To say that the KJV is the only true, unchanged version of the Bible is to truncate, handcuff, cripple God’s love and his desire for all people to know him. Incorrect.  To believe that God is incapable of preserving his words is to blaspheme God, but of course a Chirstadelphian is used to that sort of thing as they reject the Trinity… Of course, some translations of the Bible are inaccurate in places (the KJV included [see below]), but the principle of translation, and translation so that people can understand God’s word better, is sanctioned by God.2I believe in Bible translation, but I will compare each to the real authority, the King James Bible.  Just as people disagree on how long a meter is and they had to go to (until recently) the Interantional prototype meter in France to find out if they were accurate or not.  One Standard.  Not many standards.  Deut 25:15

Ironically, the people who produced the KJV would agree with this against people who think the KJV is the only proper version of the Bible; the people who produced the KJV would agree with the need for continued translation and revision so that the Bible is understandable for people in their usual language. In their preface to their KJV they wrote that the Bible should be translated into the language common to the people who read it, and they castigated people who wouldn’t do such. They also saw the need for a ‘variety of Translations’ when the meaning of the original Greek or Hebrew was unclear.3  They, as men, were wrong.  Just like Paul was wrong when he wrote that his instructions on marriage were just his and then God saw fit to inspire it and make it Scripture.  I Cor 7:6

In addition to this, the idea that the KJV is the only true, unchanged version of the Bible is a very Anglocentric idea I’m American, why would I want to be Anglocentric?  There is no motive and there is no crime.  and, in that, a very tribal idea, which, in turn, turns God into a small, limited, tribal god. They said the same thing to the Jews, when they claimed that Jehovah was their God, people disagreed and rejected their “small, limited, tribal god”.  If you think these charges are real, then why did people who believed the King James go as missionaries all over the world in the 1700s and 1800s?  In reality, though, God is God of the whole world (Gen. 1). He is the God of old English as much as he is the God of modern English; he is the God of American English, Australian English, Indian English, etc., as much as he is the God of KJV English; he is the God of any English as much as he is the God of Hindi, Ao, Indonesian, etc.  No disagreement here, but his final authority is in English.  

There is also the problem that the KJV is often not very accurate in its translation. By whose standard?  And why should believe that “standard”?  At the admission of the people who produced the KJV themselves, they used a variety of words to render the same Hebrew and Greek words,3 which sometimes could minimize accuracy and original intertextuality. OR it could be an advanced revelation.  Which it is…  A few examples of inaccuracies of translation in the KJV are:

Acts 19:37: ‘robbers of churches’ (anachronistic: churches didn’t exist at the time; inaccurate: ‘temple’ would be far better) Why would it be “far better”?  The fact is that “church” is an assembly and there have always been assemblies that were filled with idols.  How is this inaccurate at all?
Acts 12:4: ‘Easter’ (inaccurate: ‘Passover’ is the accurate translation) Incorrect, why would a Roman observe “passover” and also, passover had already happened in vs 3! The next holiday on the docket is the pagan, Roman festival of Easter.  Why would Herod wait for an entire year to deal with the issue?  He wouldn’t.  Your solution is worse than the problem.  
Rom. 3:4,6,31; 6:2,15; 7:7,13; 9:14; 11:1,11; 1 Cor. 6:15; Gal. 2:17; 3:21; 6:14: ‘God forbid’ (inaccurate: the word ‘God’ is not in the Greek. A better translation is ‘May it never be!”) The author of this article needs to understand how translation works.  This phrase in the Greek is an idiom and therefore to translate it literally is not necessary.  In Georgian “all the time” is “every month” to translate it literally, either way, would not make any sense.  Plus, the fact that the author has so few issues like this, even though the KJB translators were very literal, proves that they did a good job.  Gen. 12:6: ‘plain of Moreh’ (inaccurate: ‘plain’ should be ‘oak’) That Hebrew word shows up 9 times in the Old Testament and every time the KJB translators put “plain”.  Obviously, they think Strong and Gesenius are wrong.  Which scholars should I believe?  Also, look at the context, did Abraham dwell in a tree or in a plain?  The context makes it obvious which translation is correct.  How did the author of this article not think about this?  What else did he miss?  
In conclusion, the KJV is simply not the ‘only true, unchanged version of the Bible’. Wrong again.  Strike ten, you’re out!  That idea goes against the intentions of the people who originally produced the KJV and, worse than that, against the intentions of the God of the whole world who wants all people to come to know him and is happy to communicate to them in their own language.  I hope that all people come to know God and his words.  Let’s start with you, Luke Buckler.  Are you saved?  Do you know for sure if you will go to heaven when you die?  God’s word say you can know.  I John 5:13.  If you Christadelphians have any questions about how you can know for sure that heaven is your home, just ask.  I will take a Bible and show you what God says about it.

 

There you have it, Ol’ Luke thinks the King James is wrong, but he doesn’t know what is right.  Unless, he thinks HE is the final authority, like a pope…

Believe the Book!  I am reminded, once again, of the old song… THE BIBLE STANDS!