In response to the above statement by Steven Anderson, we might ask a simple but maybe not so obvious question: What revision of the King James Bible are you saying is "without error"? Because there have been, in fact, several comprehensive revisions—and countless minor adjustments—to the original 1611 edition! Furthermore, if the King James Bible is really "without error," then it should not have even one inaccuracy. And this is exactly the problem. Because the KJV has far more than just one inaccuracy! This is quite obvious to those who simply open their eyes and look objectively at the facts without a preconceived belief that regardless of what it says it is "without error." To illustrate just how naïve such a notion really is, it would be comparable to someone denying that the Titanic sunk to the bottom of the ocean on that fateful night so many years ago, merely because it was said to be "unsinkable." The obvious problem is—it did sink! Thus, facts are facts regardless of how much a person is inclined to believe otherwise. And so I am going to cite some actual facts related to errors in the King James Bible. And just to highlight that it is not "without error" as Steven Anderson (and others) want us to believe, I will list 10 errors in translation that are unfortunately clearly evident in the KJV and which have been pointed out and verified by respected New Testament scholars. (I will confine my study specifically to the New Testament since my academic passion is New Testament Greek.) There are, no doubt, many more inaccuracies in the King James Version that could be listed, but what follows is a list of just 10 errors to illustrate the point. Here is a representative selection of
10 Errors in the King James Bible:
1) Matthew 3:2 - "Repent" (Gr. metanoeō). The New Testament Greek scholar A. T. Robertson says that "this is the worst translation in the New Testament."[1] J. B. Phillips has translated it more accurately as "change your hearts".[2]
2) Matthew 23:24 - "strain at a gnat." Daniel B. Wallace writes: "the KJV includes one very definite error in translation, which even KJV advocates would admit. In Matthew 23:24 the KJV has ‘strain at a gnat and swallow a camel.’ But the Greek has ‘strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ In the least, this illustrates not only that no translation is infallible but also that scribal corruptions can and do take place-even in a volume which has been worked over by so many different hands (for the KJV was the product of a very large committee of over 50 scholars)."[3]
3) John 20:17 - On the wording of this verse in the King James Version, the New Testament scholar Alfred Plummer observes: "The translation 'touch Me not' [in the KJV] is inadequate and gives a false impression. The verb (haptesthai) does not mean to 'touch' and 'handle' with a view to seeing whether His body was real; this Christ not only allowed but enjoined (v. 27; Lk. 24.39; comp. 1 Jn. 1:1): rather it means to 'hold on to' and 'cling to.' Moreover it is the present (not aorist) imperative; and the full meaning will therefore be, 'Do not continue holding Me,' or simply, hold Me not."[4] A. T. Robertson affirms: "Present middle imperative in prohibition with genitive case, meaning 'cease clinging to me' rather than 'Do not touch me.'"[5]
4) Acts 2:27 - "Thou wilt not abandon my soul in hell" (KJV), but the Greek word is hades (or sheol in Psalm 16:10), not "hell". Concerning this, William R. Newell advises: "Always read the Revised Version about the words Sheol—Hades: for it transliterates them. The King James simply obscures them by various renderings [such as 'hell' and 'grave']."[6] Commenting on Acts 2:27 and word "hell" in the KJV, The Pulpit Commentary likewise notes disapproval, saying that it is "surely not so good a rendering."[7] Commenting on this same text, Lenski likewise says that the translation "hell" is "unfortunate."[8] Many other statements could be cited to the same effect. See below on 1 Corinthians 15:55 for more information.
5) Acts 12:4 - "Easter" in the King James Version should actually be translated "Passover". The KJV translators inaccurately translated the Greek word πάσχα (pascha) as "Easter," when the correct translation is actually "Passover". Strangely, the KJV translators translated pascha as "Passover" in every other occurrence of the word in the New Testament, except not in Acts 12:4 where they incorrectly translated πάσχα as "Easter". Overall, I still like the King James Version, but even the KJV translators stated that their translation was not inspired.[9] The original manuscripts of the Bible are inspired, but not the subsequent translations. The KJV-onlyists who teach that the 1611 KJV is also inspired actually believe in what's called "double inspiration": that teaching is false. Albert Barnes wrote the following helpful statement in his commentary on Acts 12:4, saying this: "Intending after Easter. There never was a more absurd or unhappy translation than this. The original is simply after the Passover (meta to pascha). The word Easter now denotes the festival observed by many Christian churches in honor of the resurrection of the Saviour. But the original has no reference to that, nor is there the slightest evidence that any such festival was observed at the time when this book [The Book of Acts] was written. The translation is not only unhappy, as it does not convey at all the meaning of the original, but because it may contribute to foster an opinion that such a festival was observed in the time of the apostles. The word Easter is of Saxon origin, and is supposed to be derived from Eostre, the goddess of Love, or the Venus of the North, in honor of whom a festival was celebrated by our pagan ancestors in the month of April (Webster). Since this festival coincided with the Passover of the Jews, and with the feast observed by Christians in honor of the resurrection of Christ, the name came to be used to denote the latter. In the old Anglo-Saxon service-books the term Easter is used frequently to translate the word Passover. In the translation by Wycliffe, the word paske, i.e., passover, is used. But Tyndale and Coverdale used the word Easter, and hence, it has very improperly crept into our translation [the King James Version]."[10] Commenting on the word "Easter" in the King James Bible, Richard Tenaglia likewise writes: "There is no such church celebration as 'EASTER' in the Bible (KJV: Acts 12:4). Not only is there no such celebration as 'EASTER' in the Bible as we know it TODAY, but there is no such [equivalent] word as EASTER in the original manuscripts either. This mistranslation in the KJV Bible, shows that the translation IS NOT INFALLIBLE. The word SHOULD have been 'passover', a JEWISH feast. The original Greek word is 'pascha', which means 'passover'. Why the goof? Because one must remember that the KJV is a conglomerate Bible of which the earlier 'Bishop's Bible' of 1568 forms a small part and INFLUENCE in the KJV translation, which includes these hierarchal vestiges left over from Romanism."[11]
6) Romans 8:16 - The Holy Spirit "itself" (Rom. 8:16, KJV). The KJV calls the Holy Spirit an "it" (!) in Romans 8:16. This is equivalent to referring to the Holy Spirit as some thing rather than some one (a thing or impersonal force rather than a person). This view of the Holy Spirit as an impersonal force has historically been viewed as heretical by a number of different church councils, such as The Council of Alexandria (362 A.D.), The First Council of Constantinople (381 A.D.), and The Council of Chacedon (451 A.D.). According to orthodox biblical theology, the Holy Spirit is a person—the third member of the Holy Trinity. Commenting on Romans 8:16, the Bible commentary by Jameison, Fausset, and Brown corrects the wording in the Authorized Version on this vital point, saying: "The Spirit itself—It should be 'Himself' (see on v. 26)."[12] On Romans 8:26, the commentary likewise says, "but the Spirit itself—rather, "Himself."[13] Commenting on Romans 8:16, the New Testament scholar Kenneth Wuest affirms: "The Holy Spirit is a Person. The pronoun should be rendered 'Himself.'"[14] In Romans 8:16, the KJV gives the grammatical gender of the Greek pronoun instead of the natural gender. It's a mistake that a beginner might make. Concerning this, the NT scholar A. T. Robertson affirms: "It is a grave mistake to use the neuter 'it' or 'itself' when referring to the Holy Spirit."[15] Today, even a first year Greek student would know not to make such a mistake. Apparently we've come a long way in our understanding of Greek grammar since 1611.
7) 1 Corinthians 11:29 - "damnation" (KJV) is not an accurate rendering of the Greek in this context. The NT scholar J. J. Lias states that the Greek word which is used here rather means "judgment."[16] Commenting on the incorrect wording in the Authorized Version (A.V.), the NT scholar Henry Alford observes: "The judgment meant, as is evident by vv. 30-32, is not 'damnation,' as rendered in our A.V., a mis-translation, which has done infinite mischief."[17] Lias goes on to say, "That it is not final condemnation that is threatened, v. 32 clearly shews (Alford, De Wette)."[18] On the word "chastened" in 1 Cor. 11:32, Lias gives the following cross-references: Psalm 94:12; Proverbs 3:11-12; and Hebrews 12:5-11. In light of 1 Cor. 11:32 and these biblical cross-references, Lias remarks: "A clear proof that damnation is an incorrect translation in v. 29."[19] Commenting on this mistranslation in the KJV, Richard Tenaglia similarly states: "We do not drink 'damnation' to ourself when we receive the Lord's table unworthily as the KJV says: we drink judgment (discipline), or physical chastisement in this life (I Cor. 11:29). The word 'damnation' is a hangover from the old Roman Catholic idea that if you receive 'communion' in sin, and die, you would go to hell by their thinking. After all, King Henry the VIII broke off relations with Rome in 1534 only 34 years earlier than the publication of the Bishop's Bible in 1568 [which also says 'damnation' in 1 Cor. 11:29], parts of which were used in the KJV, only 77 years later. So it follows that The Church of England in those early years after separating from the Papacy, really was not very much different than the Roman church in doctrine."[20]
8) 1 Corinthians 15:55 - The KJV reads "grave" instead of "Hades" or "death". In 1 Corinthians 15:55, the King James Version (KJV) reads: "Oh grave, where is your victory?" – but the Greek word for "grave" in the Received Text (the Greek text from which we get the King James Version) is hade. Although some mistake Hades for the grave, they are two different places. Hades is the abode or realm of the dead, "the common receptacle of disembodied spirits," as Thayer has said in his Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament.[21] Similarly, H. A. Ironside says in his commentary on Psalm 16 that "Hades...is the place for disembodied spirits between death and resurrection, that is, the unseen world."[22] In light of the Greek in the Received Text (a.k.a., the Textus Receptus), 1 Corinthians 15:55 in the New King James Version (NKJV) reads, "O Hades, where is your victory?" But even this is probably not the best nor the most accurate reading. There is general agreement among New Testament scholars that the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 15:55 should be "O death" (Greek thanate, from thanatos) not "O Hades". The best and oldest New Testament Greek manuscripts read thanate, not hade. Thus the NIV more accurately translates verse 55, "Where, O death, is your victory?" For those who are curious, here's what some New Testament scholars have written concerning the correct reading of 1 Corinthians 15:55:
⦁ A. T. Robertson: "O death (thanate). Second instance. Here Paul changes Hades of the LXX [Septuagint] for Hebrew Sheol (Hosea 13:14) to death. Paul never uses Hades."[23]
⦁ Marvin Vincent: "O grave (hade). Which is the reading of the Septuagint. The correct reading is thanate, O death. So Rev. [RV1885.] Hades does not occur in Paul’s writings. In Romans 10:7 he uses abyss. Edwards thinks that this is intentional, and suggests that Paul, writing to Greeks, may have shunned the ill-omened name [Hades] which people dreaded to utter."[24]
⦁ Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown: "For 'O grave,' [as it reads in the KJV] the oldest MSS. and versions read, 'O death,' the second time [in 1 Cor. 15:55]."[25]
⦁ C. G. Findlay: "[Paul] freely adapts the words of Hosea, repeating thanate in the second line, where Hosea writes sheol (LXX hade), since death is the enemy he pursues throughout (Edwards notes that hades never occurs in Paul’s [Epistles])".[26]
⦁ W. E. Vine: "In 1 Cor. 15:55 the most authentic mss. have thanatos, death, in the 2nd part of the verse, instead of Hades, which the A.V. [KJV] wrongly renders 'grave' ('hell,' in the marg.)."[27]
⦁ C. I. Scofield: in The Scofield Reference Bible, the marginal note for "grave" (1 Cor. 15:55, KJV) reads "death."[28]
⦁ Spiros Zodhiates: "The change from 'grave' in the King James Version to 'death' in most of the modern translations is justified, since the Greek word hadees, which occurs in the Textus Receptus, does not occur in most manuscripts, and Paul never uses the word. Therefore the text we accept is, 'Where thy, death, the victory? Where thy, death, the sting?' This is the literal translation in the exact order in which the words occur in the Greek text."[29]
For those who follow the Textus Receptus or Received Text (the Greek text underlying the King James Version), it's important to remember that even if the correct reading in 1 Corinthians 15:55 is hades (as opposed to thanatos)—Hades is not the grave. In his book An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, biblical scholar and theologian W. E. Vine writes: "HADES (hades), the region of departed spirits of the lost (but including the blessed dead in periods preceding the ascension of Christ)...It corresponds to 'Sheol' in the OT. In the A.V. [KJV] of the O.T. and N.T., it has been unhappily rendered 'hell,' e.g., Ps. 16:10; or 'the grave,' e.g., Gen. 37:35; or 'the pit,' Num. 16:30, 33; in the N.T. the Revisers have always used the rendering 'Hades;' in the O.T. they have not been uniform in the translation, e.g., in Isa. 14:15, 'hell' (marg., 'Sheol'); usually they have 'Sheol' in the text and 'the grave' in the margin. It never denotes the grave, nor is it the permanent region of the lost; in point of time it is, for such, intermediate between decease and the doom of Gehenna. For the condition, see Luke 16:23-31....Note: In 1 Cor. 15:55 the most authentic mss. have thanatos, death, in the 2nd part of the verse, instead of Hades, which the A.V. [KJV] wrongly renders 'grave' ('hell,' in the marg.)."[30] Dr. H. A. Ironside likewise sees a difference between Hades and the grave. Commenting on the story of the rich man and Lazarus in Luke chapter 16, Ironside writes: "Others say 'You [Mr. Ironside] are mistaken when you think of Hades as a condition in which men are found after death. Hades is simply the grave.' I do not believe this for one moment. Scripture, I am certain, teaches the very opposite."[31] Similarly, William R. Newell (responding to Bullingerism) writes: "Bullinger says: 'Hades,—we might call it Grave-dom. There is not a place where the rendering grave would not be appropriate.' (for Hades). Now Matthew 16:18 at once proves this utterly false! Church saints' bodies have been buried in graves constantly; but Hades, the region at the earth's center (Matthew 12:40; Acts 2:27, R.V.), since our Lord's resurrection, has not admitted one saint into its gates: 'The Gates of Hades shall not prevail against it' (the Church)."[32] It's quite clear that there's a distinction between Hades and the grave and the one should not be confused with the other (as in the King James Bible). The point is simply this: even if one prefers the Textus Receptus source text over modern critical texts, the KJV translators still demonstrably mistranslated words within that text (e.g., Acts 12:4; Rom. 8:16; 1 Cor. 15:55).
9) Revelation 4:1 - "hereafter" in Revelation 4:1 is literally "after these things" (Gr. meta tauta). The Free Grace theologian William R. Newell explains as follows, saying: "In both the King James and Revised Versions an utterly inadequate translation is given of the last phrase of this divine outline. The Greek expression is meta tauta. 'Meta' is a Greek preposition meaning 'after'; 'tauta' is a neuter plural pronoun meaning 'these,' or 'these things.' To translate this phrase 'meta tauta' by the adverb 'hereafter' is not to translate it at all! That is shown in chapter 4:1, where this remarkable phrase meta tauta both opens and closes the verse--a remarkable thing! Let us read this verse: 'After these things (meta tauta) I saw, and behold, a door opened in heaven, and the first voice that I heard, as of a trumpet speaking with me, one saying, Come up hither, and I will show thee the things which must come to pass after these things' (meta tauta),--that is, after Church things. (a.) No one would dream of translating meta tauta at the beginning of this remarkable verse by 'hereafter.' It would make no manner of sense. We must translate it, 'after these things I saw.' (b.) But the use by the Spirit of God of this same phrase at the end of this verse compels us to believe that the things set forth after 4:1 happened just as really after the things of the preceding chapter as the vision of 4:1 happened after those things of chapters 1, 2 and 3. The messages to the seven churches have been formally and fully closed at the end of chapter 3 and what follows these Church things is given from chapter 4, onward."[33]
In Revelation 4:1, the King James Bible also incorrectly translated the perfect participle ἠνεῳγμένη as "was opened" when the correct rendering is "standing open" (as it reads in the NKJV, the Majority Standard Bible, and in most English Bible translations). Commenting on this verse, the NT scholar Charles Ellicott notes that the apostle John "did not look and see a door opening; he saw, and lo! the door stood open."[34] J. Vernon McGee likewise affirms: "John did not see this door opening as the Authorized Version of verse 1 suggests. This door was open all the time. It is the door through which believers have come to God for over nineteen hundred years. 'Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me' (John 14:6). He also said, 'I am the door: by me if any man enter in, he shall be saved, and shall go in and out, and find pasture' (John 10:9). The open door to heaven is the Lord Jesus Christ."[35]
10) Revelation 4:6-8 - "beasts" in the KJV, but corrected to "living creatures" (Greek zoa) in the NKJV. Commenting on the word used in the King James Bible, "beasts," Trench quotes Broughton in the following manner: "Of the zoa ['living creatures']...he says, in language hardly too strong, 'they are barbarously translated beasts.' Works, p. 639."[36] Commenting on the phrasing in the Authorized Version, "the four beasts," Benson states: "and round about the throne—toward the four quarters, east, west, north, and south; were four beasts—Or rather living creatures, as ζωα means, (not beasts, certainly, any more than birds.) 'It was a most unhappy mistake,' says Doddridge, 'in our translators to render the word beasts, as it certainly signifies any other kind of animals; that is, of creatures which have animal life, as well as beasts. The word beasts not only degrades the signification, but the animals here mentioned have parts and appearances which beasts have not, and are represented in the highest sense rational.'"[37] Albert Barnes likewise states: "Were four beasts. This is a very unhappy translation, as the word beasts by no means conveys a correct idea of the original word. The Greek word—ζω̃ον—means properly a living thing; and it is thus indeed applied to animals, or to the living creation, but the notion of their being living things, or living creatures, should be retained in the translation."[38] The Bible commentary by Jamieson, Fausset, and Brown on Rev. 4:1 says: "four beasts—The Greek for 'beasts,' ch. 13, I. II, is different, therion, the symbol for the carnal man by opposition to God losing his true glory, as lord, under Him, of the lower creatures, and degraded to the level of the beast. Here it is zoon, 'living creatures'; not beasts."[39] The NT scholar Marvin R. Vincent notes that the Revised Version correctly reads "living creatures," not "beasts" as in the Authorized (King James) Version. Vincent goes on to say: "Alford aptly remarks that beasts is the most unfortunate word that could be imagined. Beast is θηρίον. Ζῶον emphasizes the vital element, θηρίον the bestial."[40]
Conclusion
These ten representative examples of errors in the KJV effectively refute the notion of "double inspiration," or the belief that the King James Bible is a divinely inspired document on par with the original autographs of the New Testament. In other words, the King James Bible is not "without error," as Steven Anderson and other KJV-Onlyists would have us believe. If the King James translation were truly divinely inspired, it would logically contain no errors. (Thus my conclusion is not the logical fallacy of insufficient sampling, because even one verified error in the KJV is enough to prove that the document is not "without error.") However much of a blessing the KJV has been to men and women down through the centuries, it is outside the bounds of orthodoxy to claim that any translation of the Bible is "without error."
I agree with Lewis Sperry Chafer's assessment when he wrote: "It is a conspicuous fact that the comparatively few errors [Chafer was being gracious!] and inconsistencies in translation, found in the English Authorized Version of the New Testament [i.e., the King James Bible], serve to hinder, directly or indirectly, any clear understanding of the teachings of Scripture."[41] In the booklet titled The KJV Bible Only?, Richard Tenaglia writes from the same basic perspective as Chafer, and Tenaglia's statements form a fitting conclusion to this entire discussion. The following statements are excerpted from his conclusion. Tenaglia observes: "That the Bible teaches that there is SAFETY in a MULTITUDE of COUNSELORS [Prov. 11:14] is a principle that applies to the use of several translations of the Scriptures rather than just one, and can be applied in rebuke to the KJV-ONLY controversy. The reason I don't want the KJV-ONLY as my Bible, is to be sure that I can check other translations as well as the Greek and Hebrew texts for greater clarity, expanded insights, a more accurate focus, a more complete coverage of word meanings, a comparison of contexts, and even an analysis of various cross-references, etc. Any legalistic attempt to restrict a Christian to one rigid translation, is an attack on the Christian's freedom under grace."[42] Tenaglia goes on to conclude: "For we know that churches that have 'pastoral primacy' [i.e. the unscriptural practice of one-elder rule similar to the Roman Catholic hierarchy of a 'bishop,' which incidentally is another inaccurate rendering in the KJV in 1 Tim. 3:1-2], plus 'paper popery', may be guilty of the sin of pernicious prating. Only in churches with a balanced leadership: pastor AND staff evangelist (Eph. 4:11), with multiple rule (Heb. 13:7; 1 Pet. 5:1-3), and the freedom to use multiple Bible translations, will the Christian retain his freedom from legalism and divisive movements."[43]
Appendix 1:
Another Inaccuracy in the King James Bible: "Bishop" (1 Tim. 3:1, 2)
Regarding the KJV's inaccurate rendering of episkopos as "bishop" in 1 Timothy 3:1-2, the following statement in Bauer's Lexicon is to the point: "The ecclesiastical loanword 'bishop' [as in the KJV] is too technical and loaded with late historical baggage for precise signification of usage of episkopos and cognates in our literature, especially the NT."[44] Rather than translating episkopos as "bishop," Bauer gives the correct translation as either "overseer or supervisor."[45] Commenting on 1 Timothy 3:1 in the Authorized Version, the Bible scholar Adam Clarke similarly states: "Our term 'bishop' comes from the Anglo-Saxon biscop, which is a mere corruption of the Greek ἐπίσκοπος, and the Latin episcopus; the former, being compounded of ἐπί, over, and σκέπτομαι, I look or inspect, signifies one who has the inspection or oversight of a place, persons, or business; what we commonly term a superintendent."[46] Commenting on 1 Timothy 3:1, H. A. Ironside affirms: "The word translated 'bishop' means 'overseer.' [...] You will never find anything like the modern bishop in the Bible. A bishop today, both in the Roman Catholic Church and in other churches which came out of Rome, is one of superior rank, set in authority over other ministers; but there is no such idea as that in Scripture."[47] Commenting on the same text, William Kelley similarly states: "[The translation] 'Bishopric' or 'office of a bishop,' [as the KJV reads in 1 Tim. 3:1] misleads here; because the modern office, with which most are familiar, so greatly differs from the primitive reality. For there were in each assembly several, with co-ordinate governmental duties of a circumscribed nature, however valuable and to be honoured in their place. Hence it appears best and wisest, as well as most consistent, to call the function 'oversight' and the functionary 'overseer,' in accordance with the Authorized Version of Acts 20.28, where the elders of the Ephesian assembly (ver. 17), who met the apostle [Paul] at Miletus, are so designated."[48]
ENDNOTES:
[1] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, 6 Vols., Vol. I, p. 24, quoting the NT scholar John A. Broadus.
[2] J. B. Phillips, The Gospels Translated into Modern English (New York: The MacMillan Company, 1957), p. 4. Note: See Matthew 3:2 in the Phillips Translation.
[3] Daniel B. Wallace, "Why I Do Not Think the King James Bible Is The Best Translation Available Today," p. 2. In a footnote, Wallace adds: "There are other mistakes in the KJV which persist to this day, even though this translation has gone through several editions. For example, the KJV in Heb 4:8 reads: 'For if Jesus had given them rest, then would he not afterward have spoken of another day.' This sounds as though Jesus could not provide the eternal rest that we all long for! However, the Greek word for Jesus is the same as the word for Joshua. And in the context of Heb 4, Joshua is obviously meant. There is no textual problem here; it is rather simply a mistake on the part of the translators, perpetuated for the last 400 years in all editions of the KJV." (Ibid., footnote 4.)
[4] Alfred Plummer, The Gospel According to St. John, p. 359.
[5] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. 5, p. 312.
[6] William R. Newell, Romans Verse-By-Verse, p. 397.
[7] A. C. Hervey, "The Acts of the Apostles," in The Pulpit Commentary, edited by H. D. M. Spence and Joseph S. Exell, Vol. I, p. 53.
[8] R. C. H. Lenski, The Interpretation of The Acts of the Apostles, p. 90.
[9] In the Preface to the King James Version of 1611, the translators state: "A man may be counted a virtuous man, though he have made many slips in his life, (else there were none virtuous, for in many things we offend all, James iii. 2), also a comely man and lovely, though he have some warts upon his hand, yea, not only freckles upon his face, but also scars. No cause therefore why the word translated should be denied to be the word, or forbidden to be current [circulated], notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it." (Preface to the 1611 King James Bible, "The Translators to the Reader," brackets and bold add.) The translators go on to say: "For whatever was perfect under the sun, where apostles or apostolic men, that is, men endued with an extraordinary measure of God's Spirit, and privileged with the privilege of infallibility, had not their hand?" (Ibid.) This is a rhetorical question. The KJV translators are saying: "Name one thing ever written that was absolutely perfect (without error) where an Apostle or a prophet inspired by the Holy Spirit didn't have a direct hand in writing it." They are admitting that because they are not Apostles, they cannot produce a perfect, infallible text. Therefore, their work is inherently human and subject to potential error.
[10] Albert Barnes, Notes on the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1956), p. 190, brackets added. Note: I updated the archaic spelling of Wycliffe's and Tyndale's names.
[11] Richard Tenaglia, The KJV Bible Only? (Milwaukee: GNMC, 1985), p. 24, emphasis his, brackets added.
[12] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (1878), Vol. II, p. 241.
[13] Ibid., p. 242.
[14] Kenneth S. Wuest, Romans in the Greek New Testament, p. 135.
[15] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 374.
[16] J. J. Lias, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 116.
[17] Henry Alford, The New Testament for English Readers, Vol. II, Part 1, p. 208.
[18] J. J. Lias, The First Epistle to the Corinthians, p. 116.
[19] Ibid., p. 117.
[20] Richard Tenaglia, The KJV Bible Only?, pp. 24-25, emphasis his, brackets added.
[21] Joseph Thayer, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament (Grand Rapids: Baker Book House, 1977), p. 11.
[22] H. A. Ironside, Studies on Book One of the Psalms (New York: Loizeaux Brothers, Inc., 1952), p. 86.
[23] A. T. Robertson, Word Pictures in the New Testament, Vol. IV, p. 199.
[24] Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. III, p. 286, emphasis his, brackets added. Note: I transcribed the Greek letters into English.
[25] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary, Critical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments, Vol. II, p. 296, brackets added.
[26] C. G. Findlay, W. R. Nicoll, Editor, The Expositor's Greek New Testament, 5 Vols., Vol. II, p. 942.
[27] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words, see entry for "HADES".
[28] C. I. Scofield, The Scofield Reference Bible (New York: Oxford University Press, 1945), p. 1228.
[29] Spiros Zodhiates, Conquering the Fear of Death in View of the Empty Tomb, pp. 775-776, italics his. Zodhiates goes on to write: "Paul does not deal with hadees, which in other books of the New Testament is presented as the dwelling place to which men's disembodied spirits went. It would have been contrary to the whole trend of his argument in 1 Corinthians 15 for him to speak of hadees as an enemy, for he does not deal with the period preceding the resurrection of Christ, when the spirits of believers and unbelievers went to hadees. (Luke 16:19ff indicates that Abraham's bosom was the designation of the place in hadees to which the spirit of righteous Lazarus went, and the place of torment in hadees was where the unrighteous rich man was consigned.) After the resurrection of Christ, believers are never referred to as going to hadees, but as going to be with Christ (Acts 7:59, Phil. 1:23, Heb. 12:23). And Christ is in heaven (Mark 16:19, Luke 21:54, Acts 1:9, Heb. 4:14, 1 Pet. 3:22). Death is still an enemy of the Christian, for he still experiences it; but hadees is not, for the Christian does not go there. And it is with the external destiny of the Christian that Paul is primarily concerned in 1 Corinthians 15. His subject is the resurrection of the body, not the place where the soul dwells when disembodied." (Ibid., p. 775, italics his.)
[30] W. E. Vine, An Expository Dictionary of New Testament Words (Old Tappan, New Jersey: Fleming H. Revel Company, 1966), pp. 187-188, ellipsis and bold added, italics his.
[31] H. A. Ironside, Death and Afterward, p. 25.
[32] William R. Newell, The Book of The Revelation (Chicago: Moody Press, 1978), p. 380. Note: This book was originally published in 1935.
[33] William R. Newell, Revelation Chapter-By-Chapter, pp. 390-391, emphasis his. Note: I placed parenthesis around "a." and "b." to make it more apparent that Newell is using them to mark out enumerated points within the paragraph.
[34] Charles J. Ellicott, A New Testament Commentary for English Readers, Vol. III, p. 551.
[35] J. Vernon McGee, Thru the Bible with J. Vernon McGee (Nashville: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1983), Vol. V, p. 929.
[36] Richard C. Trench, On the Authorized Version of the New Testament, p. 102, endnote 1.
[37] Joseph Benson, Critical, Explanatory, and Practical Notes (New York: 1847), Vol. II, p. 719.
[38] Albert Barnes, Notes, Explanatory and Practical, on the Book of Revelation (New York: 1854), p. 137.
[39] Robert Jamieson, A. R. Fausset, and David Brown, A Commentary: Critical, Practical and Explanatory, on the Old and New Testaments (Chicago: Fleming H. Revell, n.d.), NT, Vol. II, p. 544.
[40] Marvin R. Vincent, Word Studies in the New Testament, Vol. II, p. 481.
[41] Lewis Sperry Chafer, Satan, 1919 Edition, p. 21.
[42] Richard Tenaglia, The KJV Bible Only?, p. 28, emphasis his, brackets added.
[43] Ibid., p. 29, emphasis his, brackets added.
[44] Walter Bauer, Frederick William Danker, W. F. Arndt, and F. W. Gingrich, A Greek-English Lexicon of the New Testament and Other Early Christian Literature, 3rd Edition, p. 379.
[45] Ibid, emphasis his.
[46] Adam Clarke, A Commentary and Critical Notes (New York: 1884), Vol. II, p. 338, emphasis his. Note: I placed quotation marks around the word "bishop" to make it more apparent that Clarke is referring to that specific word.
[47] H. A. Ironside, Addresses on the First and Second Epistles of Timothy, pp. 75-76, brackets added.
[48] William Kelly, An Exposition of the Two Epistles to Timothy (London: 1948), p. 58, brackets added. Note: I updated the Roman numerals of the original to the current format.
No comments:
Post a Comment
You can also send your questions or comments to me at freegracer@gmail.com.