Some problems with the HAC KJB summit July 2009

King James Bible information (Moderators only)

Some problems with the HAC KJB summit July 2009

Postby bibleprotector » 27 May 2014, 17:54


1. Marshall said, in his opening remarks, “It seems logical to me that if God is going to get the Word that brings salvation to everybody, then it has to be in a host of languages that are quite innumerable”. “Sometimes we elevate the English language as though it is the premier container [language] to take the Word of God to this world, no, it ought to be in hundreds and thousands of witnesses all across the world, and all across the globe.”

The more logical position is to see that, in time, God is providentially raising up one global language, and has one principal and exemplar Bible, the King James Bible, made common and standard for all the world. This would mean not explicitly emphasising other translations, which do, on examination, differ to the King James Bible.

This may be seen by a variety of verses, such as,

“So shall they fear the name of the LORD from the west, and his glory from the rising of the sun. When the enemy shall come in like a flood, the Spirit of the LORD shall lift up a standard against him.” (Isaiah 59:19).

“All ye inhabitants of the world, and dwellers on the earth, see ye, when he lifteth up an ensign on the mountains; and when he bloweth a trumpet, hear ye.” (Isaiah 18:3).

“For with stammering lips and another tongue will he speak to this people.” (Isaiah 28:11).

“For then will I turn to the people a pure language, that they may all call upon the name of the LORD, to serve him with one consent.” (Zephaniah 3:9).

“Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read: no one of these shall fail, none shall want her mate: for my mouth it hath commanded, and his spirit it hath gathered them.” (Isaiah 34:16).

2. “Those 227 years [from Wycliffe to the King James Bible] were filled with translating and editing and revising and perfecting and polishing the English text”.

Since there is no direct lineage between the translation of Wycliffe, and the beginning of the seven major Protestant English translations starting from Tyndale, it is much better argued, and consistent with the translators’ own words, as well as the facts concerning the direct history of the King James Bible, that there is an accord between the historical fact of seven major Protestant English translations and the prophecy in Psalm twelve concerning the seven times of purification. This therefore excludes Wycliffe’s Version, and shortens the particular timescale involved.

3. The King James Bible was considered was a revision of former Protestant English translations, as the translators themselves stated, “but let us rather bless God from the ground of our heart for working this religious care in him to have the translations of the Bible maturely considered of and examined. For by this means it cometh to pass, that whatsoever is sound already, (and all is sound for substance in one or other of our editions, and the worst of ours far better than their authentick Vulgar) the same will shine as gold more brightly, being rubbed and polished; also, if any thing be halting, or superfluous, or not so agreeable to the original, the same may be corrected, and the truth set in place.” And, “No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.”

Marshall states that the translations had error in them, and then asks, “If you consider each of the predecessors to the KJ Bible — Tyndale, Coverdale, Geneva, Matthew’s, Great ... or the Bishops’ Bible — as ‘inspired’, preserved English words of God, then why would they need to be changed or updated, edited and corrected by many revisions and editions, yet they were considered the word of God?”

This is the exact question which someone who holds exclusively to the King James Bible should be able to answer:

i. The Word of God was sufficiently given in the various texts of the six major Protestant English Bibles,
ii. The Word of God was sufficiently translated, that is, sufficient of the true sense was given in English,
iii. The text was, overall, refined or purified generally successively,
iv. The translation was, overall, refined or purified generally successively,
v. Any and all editions of these versions had presentation issues,
vi. The King James Bible was the culmination of the purification of the text, translation, taken from a holistic view of these former works, and supersuccessionary, and
vi. The King James Bible, when first printed, presented the final text and translation of the Word of God in English, set forth for all the world, despite the presentational issues in the English in the first printing of 1611.

Clearly, another issue is here. Inspiration is a one off process that occurred in the initial writing of the Scripture. The inspired words were then retained by God’s providential preservation. Thus, any time men of God, in the providential continuum, translated, they were handling the inspired words.

The point is that the King James Bible men are unique as translators — they were not inspired — but they were the vessels of God’s preservation to be able to gather correctly the entire text of Scripture perfectly, that is, to form the exact version of the entire Bible, which matches word for word what was inspired in 66 books (i.e. piecemeal). And, the same men were able to render properly, sense for sense, for the first and only time ever in history, by virtue of a translation no less, sense for sense, the exact meaning of the words that were first written in the Autographs, giving them in one Bible which would be in a language which would become global. Thus, the King James Bible translators were not inspired. They were not making an inspired translation. They were, in fact, re-amassing exactly into one exemplar and standard form what would be the supersuccessionary singular Bible for all the world in the latter days. (The inspired words came via copies, and appear in the KJB.)

The KJB men were able to get it right simply because in God’s plan they were the right people at the right time in the right place with the right materials who were able to collectively judge rightly what actually is the Word of God. We have the same Bible today as was first printed in 1611, that is, the same text and translation.

Thus, not only can we say that the inspired Scripture was sufficiently present in the King James Bible, which has been enough to call any proper and normal copy or translation of the Scripture “the Word of God”, but that it has the very words of God exactly, thus, is the inspired Scripture exactly, fully, utterly and totally.

4. Marshall claims, “the translators ... weren’t flawless and didn’t consider themselves above revision”.

The word “revision” has two meanings. Either it could mean revision of text and translation, or revision in regards to the English presentation. It is a fact that there is no explicit reference by the translators which regards the King James Bible as “flawed”, nor that they allow in any way, revision of the text and translation.

In fact, the revisionary work that has taken place in regards to the King James Bible, whether by the translators themselves, or other learned editors, never really amounts to a change in the underlying text and translation, and on the few very minor occasions where there appears to be a difference which may also be observed in variations in the underlying original language editions, it is quite easy and simple to argue at least most of the times that such a variation is due to a printing mistake in the first edition.

5. Marshall claims, “They did not think they were creating a new ‘final authority’ in English to replace the Greek and Hebrew from which all translation should conform.”

There are several points here.

A. The translators did see the King James Bible as final.

They write, “that out of the Original Sacred Tongues, together with comparing of the labours, both in our own, and other foreign Languages, of many worthy men who went before us, there should be one more exact Translation of the holy Scriptures into the English Tongue”.

They must have viewed their work ass one more, implying last, and exact, meaning that nothing further can be done. The phrase “one more exact translation” must mean finality in both execution of making of Bibles, and finality in the exactness of the message communicated in English.

This led them to state, “And now at last, by the mercy of God, and the continuance of our labours, it being brought unto such a conclusion, as that we have great hopes that the Church of England shall reap good fruit thereby”.

The good fruit would not be reaped from Hebrew and Greek learning, but from the knowledge of God’s Word in English.

B. There is no final authority in the Hebrew and in the Greek.

There is not one extant copy of the Hebrew OT, nor Greek NT which matches what was first inspired. Moreover, every edition of the Textus Receptus differs to every other one. Thus, there is no final perfect standard exemplar copy of the Scripture in Greek, or in Hebrew today.

However, there is one in English. “Seek ye out of the book of the LORD, and read” (Isaiah 34:16a).

The King James Bible is supersuccessionary to the Hebrew and Greek.

Isa 28:19 From the time that it goeth forth it shall take you: for morning by morning shall it pass over, by day and by night: and it shall be a vexation only to understand the report.
Isa 28:20 For the bed is shorter than that a man can stretch himself on it: and the covering narrower than that he can wrap himself in it.
Isa 28:21 For the LORD shall rise up as in mount Perazim, he shall be wroth as in the valley of Gibeon, that he may do his work, his strange work; and bring to pass his act, his strange act.

C. The King James Bible, while not explicitly seen to be supersuccessionary to all translations, was not prohibited, or excluded from being so, in line with God’s providence.

6. Marshall claims that the KJB translators “considered the Hebrew of the OT and the Greek of the NT to be the Final Authority”.

In fact, they considered received Scripture, and therefore what was preserved of what was inspired, to be final authority, and went beyond the confines of what could be seen in Hebrew and Greek, also considering other versions, commentaries, testimonies, translations, etc. This is because the Scripture RECEIVED was Scripture indeed, nor merely a narrow dereference to the words of Hebrew and Greek only.

True translation is to bring the fulness of what was there in those original languages into the final form, English, so that the English-speaker may confidently rely upon the Word of God in English without ever having to reference those former tongues again. This is because God was able to, by His Providence, supply the full Word in English, and is not so weak that He is shackled to the original languages yet, nor that we should only find full confidence if we come to understand the original tongues. This would manifestly be a blight against the very principles of the Reformation, that is, to have God’s very Word in the common tongue, furthermore having, in the Restitution of the Church in the latter days, God’s Word in English for all, unto all, and one.

7. Marshall claims that the marginal references contain “alternate renderings” and “suggestions” which he interprets to “suggest that they as translators were not the final authority”.

The problem here is that the margins are not alternate, nor equal, nor do they indicate the actual uncertain state of the Scripture as presented in the King James Bible. This can be clearly seen on two lines:

First, that the translators chose which rendering to put in the main text, and what else to put in the margin, delineating clearly between their collective judgment as to what was Scripture, and what was not as fit.

Second, that since that time, the tacit and avowed acceptance of millions of Christians and scholars has been vastly in favour of the translators’ decisions both in general, and if taken on a case by case examination, that what stands as the main reading is the true, and what stands in the margin is simply not the best, rightest or most agreeable.

8. Marshall states, “It is obvious that the men who made up the Hampton Court” — actually, that was a location, and a conference held there years before in regards to Puritanism, so it should say, “translation committees” — “as well as previous editors and translators, felt that the doctrine of preservation was not an event but a constant journey pursuing a complete container (English language) for the words of God.”

While preservation and received tradition are ongoing, the making of the English Bible is finite. Psalm twelve expressly states “seven times”. This is a finite process with a fixed result.

There were seven major English Protestant Bibles. There cannot be any more.

Likewise, the purification of the King James Bible was limited; limited both in scope and in application. The correcting of typographical errors, or the standardising of English was a finite process which resulted in a particular conclusion.

There is no ongoing evolution of the English Bible.

To suggest such is to be dangerously close to the modernist side of the Bible Version issue.

If the English Bible is subject to some sort of evolution of the English langauge, then God is weak, natural forces are in control and error is rampent.

If the English Bible is subject to the originals, the problem is that the originals are actually in a state of flux, because the actual form of them is unknown and subject to endless controversy. There is no real authority anywhere today which can change the King James Bible, not even to alter one jot or one tittle in our present edition.

9. “Or, did He give us a firm foundation of inerrant and infallible words in the original languages and say, ‘Here, take these, and get it into every language’?”

This implies that the Scripture is not inerrant nor infallible in the King James Bible, and that one of the varying copies and editions in the original languages is the standard form of the Scripture. The problem is that no such copy in the originals is identified today as the final authority.

10. Marshall argues that the printers made mistakes, and implies on that basis that the translators of 1611 must have made mistakes. (Marshall certainly does not state that the translators got it 100% right.)

While the 1604–1611 translators were not inspired, and that the King James Bible was not made by inspiration, it is true that it is inerrant and infallible. This is because the words are inerrant and infallible. The translators were merely men, yet it was such, that by God’s providence, they were able to get the text and translation right, as a seemingly natural process, as an outworking of God’s providential preservation, not as a new “supernatural” inspiration.

11. Marshall quotes the unbeliever Scrivener on the editions of the King James Bible, as though God’s providence has failed to keep the King James Bible through its history, so that “oversight and negligence” are manifest, and that the King James Bible in its subsequent history from 1611 was merely the work of men, exhibiting numerous errors, “from which no work of man can be entirely free”.

This is an entirely false and unbelieving view of the history of the King James Bible, because if God had managed to preserve Scripture to 1611, and give His Word in English by then, surely He would have preserved it since!

In reality, the proper line of editions of the KJB have served as the method by which God, in His Providence, has worked to free the presentation of KJB editions from errors and impurities.

12. Marshall discusses translational variations while discussing typographical errors in the King James Bible.

These are two entirely separate issues. A mistake in printing does not mean that the translators of 1611 were also subject to mistakes in their collective judgment.

13. Marshall speaks of the adherence to the standard, the Hebrew and the Greek, in regards to looking at editions of the KJB.

It is evident that when an editor worked on the King James Bible, that he did not regard the Hebrew and Greek as the final authority, but viewed the received tradition, compared various major editions, regarded the first printed edition, perhaps the translators’ master if it were available, but there is no explicit mention or evidence that the original languages were looked to in this regard, except for the work on the italics and margins.

14. Marshall claims that errors of the press began to accumulate in Barker’s early editions.

In reality, even under Barker, corrections were continually being made, both in disregarding errors which crept into particular editions, and also general work which improved upon what was printed in 1611, though with other errors being made in the new editions. These errors were disregarded in further editions. Thus, the King James Bible was not in a hopeless case from 1611 to 1629, even though Barker made mistakes.

15. Marshall claims that two translators were involved in the 1629 Cambridge Edition.

In fact, it is unknown who the editors of the 1629 Cambridge Edition were.

16. Marshall, in obviously following David Norton’s material, claims that “shamefacedness” is different to “shamefastness” at 1 Timothy 2:9. He then says that he does not think that “shamefacedness” is right.

In reality, they are two spellings of the same word. This can be shown from Johnson's Dictionary, which gives "shamefacedness", even when quoting sources (e.g. Shakespeare) which spelt "shamefastness". The modern distinguishing of meanings cannot be applied unhistorically to the King James Bible.

Marshall actually corrects the King James Bible by willingly rejecting the received tradition.

17. Marshall says, “If you have a Bible that is inerrant, if your English translation is inerrant, that means there was no pressmen ever to misspell a word”.

This is a false leap of logic. Inerrancy of the Scripture, along with inerrancy of the text and translation in English, is entirely different from having a scrupulously correct printing of the Bible.

In reality, through the process of purification, it has been possible to arrive at a knowledge of a certain and finite English text-form of the King James Bible which is free from press errors.

Arriving at a printed text free from typographical errors has first required arriving at the final and pure edition of the King James Bible. The Pure Cambridge Edition.

Therefore, a translation can be error-free because printing errors are not translation errors, and in the case of the King James Bible, we now have the King James Bible free from press errors. Moreover, the same translation is apparent throughout all editions, the present final one being the same as the first one of 1611.

18. He says, “You cannot say a translation is error-free as long as you inject human instrumentality into the production of it.”

This is entirely false. The King James Bible was a correct translation, despite the printers making mistakes.

It is false to imply that printing errors necessitates that the translators also made errors.

It is false to imply that the translation cannot be known because of typographical presentational issues, or to imply that a translation is marred (irreparably) by printers’ errors.

Translation (the work of the 1604-1611 men) and the printing (the work of printers) are two separate things. The press has not had the power to destroy or stop the work of the translators.

If the press did wrongly, or if editors persist with something wrong, it does potentially cause there to be an impediment. However, God has worked to ensure that no impediment actually can justly stand.

Consider the case of the word “Spirit” in Matthew 4:1. The issue with an impure edition of the King James Bible has not been enough to stop the reality that “Spirit” is both meant by the translators, and is the proper form today (Cambridge). In other words, no matter what, in time, God manifested providentially through the providential preservation by editors that the correct presentation of the King James Bible would be made manifest.

While such variations do not, in their historical context, actually mar the meaning of the Scripture, there is obviously a problem where in the present time people argue for the impure, or depart from purity, which requires the rejecting of the received tradition, and departing from what has the signal providences concerning its legitimacy.

19. Marshall says he disagrees with the statement that “the current edition of the King James Version is, as far as the text is concerned, IDENTICAL to the intended original edition.”

Since the King James Bible has not undergone changes in the underlying version text and translation, then what was intended in 1611 is clearly the same today, regardless of typographical errors in the first printing of 1611, the standardisation of the English language, and other editorial regularisation.

Thus, we do have an identical text and translation. The differences in presentation, of course, mean that our presentation is not identical. But we cannot confuse the work of the translators with the issues of presentation (even though the translators themselves probably spelt words as differently as the 1611 men did.)

20. Marshall claims that if we reject the originals, then we have no standard to judge future editions of the King James Bible.

The truth is that God has supplied a standard edition of the King James Bible, by which all other editions may be judged. While it has not been wrong for people to check the correctness of the King James Bible to the original languages, there is no need to continue that trend, on the grounds that there is no final exemplar copy or known extant standard in the originals of either Testament, and that there has been so much vindication of the King James Bible, that it is no longer needful to be on such ground. Moreover, the making of proper revised editions of the King James Bible has long ago come to its conclusion, that is, fulfilling a sevenfold timescale according to Psalm 12, so that we have our final standard edition in our hands. There is no particular need to defer to the originals, or to present understanding of the originals, in regards to our trust and certainty in the Scripture, to the power of Scripture to save, and to any other work of Scripture in the coming hours, for that the Word of God is being made manifest to the world in a supersuccessionary form means the laying aside of former things.

Just as when Enoch was translated, so that nothing of Enoch was left behind, so we can see the Word of God translated, as we have it in our final worldwide Bible, does not in any way direct us to look back to the originals from whence it formerly abode. It is not beyond the seas or in the depths, nor hidden away, but manifestly in English that we might see it, hear it and believe it.

Closing remarks. Marshall does correctly show that there are indeed revisions of the King James Bible, but grossly understates the numbers, there are something like 4000 apparent word differences between 1611 and the present time. None of these differences constitutes a real change in the KJB.

In the fourth session, a visibly nervous Ken Schaap, tries to explain that the differences in editions of the King James Bible are “translation changes”, and that changes are the results of “retranslations”. He makes many mistakes, both in his manner and in the facts which he gives, indicating that he is not confident on the topic, and bewraying the fact that he does not really know what he is speaking about.

He makes some astonishing false statements, based on his ignorance, such as, “Therefore, what the translators did in 1611 was not complete, because it was missing 47 words”. In reality, the version text and translation were complete, and the translators cannot be charged with producing an inferior work. He makes the erroneous assumption that what is printed in 1611 must be the translators’ intended work as far as every last detail of the presentation. But since it is clear that the translators did not intend nor were the authors of the printing errors, already it can be pointed out that the translators cannot be summarily be blamed for doing an incomplete work.

He argues: 1. Words were added later. 2. Therefore the 1611 translators’ work was incomplete. 3. Therefore the translators were not inspired. This is entirely an incorrect line of reasoning. The reality is that the translators were not inspired, but that has nothing to do with the purification of the presentation in later editions. The truth is that the translators got the text and translation right, and that the kind of work that was required in the King James Bible was in regards to the accurate printing, standardised language and regularised presentation (e.g. italics and other consistencies). In short, presentation issues cannot be used to accuse the translators of making a wrong translation! This is because it is possible to argue that a right translation was made, without any requirement for “inspiration” to ensure it. Moreover, if the translation was right, there is no need anymore to uphold the original languages as an authority, whereas if we do not yet have or know whether or not we have the Word of God exactly in English, then (just as the modern versionists) we must be dependant on the error-based claims of those who emphasise the original languages.

If we look at those who use the KJB exclusively, and then break it down into categories, it is clear that the position taught at the KJB Summit was Textus Receptus Only (TRO), rather than an English Bible Only view.

At the summit, some key differences between their view and a sound KJBO view are as follows:

1. Deemphasising the inspired nature of the King James Bible, deemphasising its inerrancy and infallibility, deemphasising its textual (versional) perfection and expressly disavowing its translational accuracy, as though it does not completely, utterly, totally and wholly contain in English what was 100% there in the inspired original autographs.

2. The upholding of the “original languages” as final authority, despite failing to identify what exactly the actual form of this text should be.

3. The concerted desire and efforts for continuing translations into other languages, deemphasising the providentially chosen status of the English language and the King James Bible, making the King James Bible no better than any other Bible. This is because there is a failure to see the supersuccession of the King James Bible, not only as an independent variety of the Received Text, but that it is the final form of the Received Text for the whole world.

4. Regarding changes in the presentation of the King James Bible in varying editions as if they are translational differences, and indicating that the King James Bible has been changed by consultation to the originals (while saying that such changes are not doctrinal), and incorrectly defining or understanding the full nature of the changes, by mistakenly applying some 1611 edition renderings as translator errors, and failing to recognise that the version text and translation has not actually changed.

5. Stating that the margins are alternate to the main text, or that they are continuing uncertainties or that they indicate that the translators were of doubtful collective judgment, even though they clearly differentiate between margin and text.

6. Misusing, misunderstanding and taking wrong sources of information, in regards to the correctness of the translators in their work, in regards to the correctness of the editors overall in their work, and in regards to the power of the superintendence of God in history, divorcing from God the power to work providentially as to mature, complete and perfect works, such as the advent of the exact Word of God in English, and mistakenly regarding that perfection or fullness can only result from direct supernatural interference, when God’s work is pervasive in time and space, and that God achieves His ends even by free-willed submitted men.

7. A lack of appreciation of the nature of purification, that the purifying of the English Bibles from Tyndale to the KJB was a finite process (i.e. seven times according to Psalm 12), just as the work in editions is not merely haphazard, but likewise a finite purification process.

Correct points made, which refute some more extreme views:

1. The historical pre-Christian existence of the LXX.

2. The reality that the King James Bible translators were not inspired.

3. The reality of revisions in the King James Bible.

4. The reality of differences between the 1769 Edition and present ones.
Site Admin
Site Admin
Posts: 136
Joined: 26 May 2014, 15:31
Location: Australia

Return to King James Bible

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests