KJV02I received the following comments:

Dear Nate, thank you for your response to my email.  I still maintain that the only version in our English language is the KJB.

I still believe you should take the time to read some of the writings of Gail Riplinger.

Psa 119:140 tells me that God’s word is pure, as does Pro 30:5.

I’m I to believe that or are you saying that I must be a Hebrew and Greek Schoolar. Heck, I did good to get out of the 7th grade. So I rely on people who have done their home work on the verious translations. You will find that Sister Riplinger has done just that.  She not only points out the curuption in all of the new versions, but the background of those involved.  You would be surprised to find that those you have put your trust in have backgrounds that any Christian would question.  After you have read one of her books, drop me a line and we can get into some more discussion.  I’m pretty sure you love the Word also.

PS – on that Easter thing you was talking about, I questioned that also until I found that king Harod celabrated that pagan feast called Easter, so the translators properly translated the word.

Also, you will find that only the KJB is not copywritten, all the rest are and you must change at 15% of the words of the original to get your copywrite.

Westcott-Hort was involved in things that you should take the time to look into, as well as you bible study tools authors.

Wait a minute. The King James is the only version? I think you must have mis-spoken here. I have seen and read plenty of others.

I will admit that I have not read any of the writings of Gail Riplinger.

Psalm 119:140. Thy word is very pure: therefore thy servant loveth it.

To this I would say, “Amen.” Yet Psalm 119 was written long ago. Although the author is not listed, I believe it was Hezekiah, which means it was written around 2,600 years ago. If you think David wrote it, it would be more like 3,000 years ago. There was not a man on earth speaking English at this time. When Hezekiah wrote this, he was talking about the word of God in ancient Hebrew. He was not talking about a translation made more than 2,000 years after his death into a language he had never heard of.

Proverbs 30:5. Every word of God is pure: he is a shield unto them that put their trust in him.

Again, this is completely true, and I wholeheartedly agree with it. Yet these proverbs are from the time of Solomon, David’s son, and so were written around 3,000 years ago, and about 2,600 years before the King James Version ever came to be. They can have no possible reference to a translation made long after the book of Proverbs was written.

No, Brother, I am not saying you have to be a Hebrew or Greek scholar. Praise God for English translations! They bring the Word of God into the language of the people, so that we can read and understand in our own mother tongue. They are what keep the Word of God from being the property only of a very few, intellectual elites. That is how it was in the Dark Ages, and that is why ignorance and superstition had such a free reign. There is every reason to want English translations. Yet we must never lose sight of this fact: that what we have are translations, and that the pure Word of God is really only found in the originals. That does not mean that the translations cannot be very close, and that we will understand much better with an imperfect translation than we ever could trying to muddle our way through the original languages. Yet a translation is still a translation, only as good or bad as the people who translated it were at taking Hebrew and Greek and rendering them into English. But praise God for translations! We need them.

The only way to get a perfect translation would be to have the God-given gift of the interpretation of tongues. I believe that all such Divine gifts passed off the scene with the past dispensation, and have no place in the dispensation of grace.

Brother, has Sister Riplinger ever checked into the background of those involved in the King James Version? Because if she had, she would have found that they were members of the Church of England. The Church of England of that day had many beliefs and practices that evangelicals today would find shocking, wrong, and even abhorrent. These were not perfect men who translated the King James Version. I agree that some of the modern scholars have not been the men of faith that they should have been. Sometimes this might affect their work. But the practices and beliefs of the Church of England affected the men who made that translation as well. Only an inspired prophet could give us a perfect translation, and we don’t have any of those today.

We have to go with what we think is the best available to us. I agree with you wholeheartedly on that. The King James Version might even be the best available. I really like it, although I often like the New King James even better. Yet that does not make it God’s perfect Word preserved in English. That is asking far too much of it.

I do love the Word of God, and am always happy to meet others who do as well.

What Herod may or may not have celebrated is hard to say. Yet what you are suggesting is just not true. The word in Greek is the word for Passover. What in English we call Easter is called Passover in just about every other language in which Christianity is practiced (with only one exception, as far as I know.) Whether or not there was an ancient feast to the goddess after which Easter is named, it is clear that that is not where our name “Easter” came from. The King James translators seem to have wanted to get the biggest holiday on the calendar of the Church of England into the Bible.

As far as it goes, it is Luke who mentions Easter, not Herod.

I do not see how having to change 15% of the original to get a copyright applies to the King James, since it is not the original. There were many English translations made before it. The King James was largely based on these. Besides, I do not know that even the very first English translation could ever be called “the original,” since that really only applies to the language the book was originally written in.

As far as the KJB not being copyrighted, that is just plain wrong. The King James Version has a copyright to the crown of England. That copyright was made without any expiration date or end. Yet when our country broke away from England during the American Revolution, the printers saw it as an opportunity to stop paying the copyright to the crown. After all, American sentiment was all against the crown at the time. So they started printing bootleg copies of the King James Version without paying the copyright. When we won the War for Independence, this practice became solidified, and it has been done ever since. Yet it is still not true that the King James Version is not copyrighted. It is just that American publishers do not recognize that copyright, and print the King James without paying for it.

I know that Westcott and Hort were not the most admirable of people. I do not really think much of their Greek text. That is why I like the New King James above other modern versions.

I do not know if Bible study tools’ authors really make that much difference. If a tool is written to tell you how many times the word ekklesia appears in the New Testament and where, that tool is either factually right or factually wrong. What the author of the tool believed is irrelevant. His beliefs might affect his definition of ekklesia he gives if he is writing a dictionary. Yet it cannot affect something that is just dependent upon the facts.

If you are letting people convince you not to use Bible study tools that help you use Hebrew and Greek, then you are cutting yourself off from much truth. I don’t know how much further I would be from the truth if I had never bothered to look into Hebrew and Greek words, but I am sure it would be much further behind than I actually am. There is nothing wrong with knowing that the Hebrew word nephesh is translated “soul” about 50% of the time, and other words about 50%. Knowing this, I can go to my Bible and learn much more about the word “soul” than I ever could just using the King James. Does that hurt my Bible knowledge, or help it?

I pray that you will reconsider these things.

Keep studying the Word!

Advertisements