Table of contents for KJV-Only Fallicies
- Psalm 12:7 - What or who is it referring to?
- Two more KJV-Only Myths
- Footnotes and Text of the NKJV
In just about every sermon I have heard, or every book I have read which claims that the King James Bible is God’s one and only ‘Perfect Book’ Psalm 12:6-7 is used as a proof text. People who have not studied these verses eat it up when the speaker or writer claim that the KJV is the “them” being spoken of in verse 7. This verse somehow gives them the authority to criticize and cut down every other Bible version, even making claims that they are the ‘Devil’s books.’ But what does verse 7 really refer to? Let’s look at it in context, in other versions, and in the way it has historically been interpreted?
KJV
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
It is obvious that verse 6 is referring to the words of the Lord. The second portion of the verse likens them to silver which has been refined. This method was the way silver was purified. Seven is usually thought of as the number of perfection or completeness in the Bible. So the Psalmist is expressing his trust in the Words of the Lord. He completely trusts God’s Word. It is as pure as the purest silver. Verse 6 seems pretty clear, but some people actually try to make the claim that the English Bible was actually purified 7 times. They would say that 1 - Wycliffe was the first, and then 2 - Tyndale, then 3 - Coverdale, and then the 4 - Matthews, then the 5 - Geneva, followed by the 6 - Bishop’s and finally the 7 - King James Version of 1611. The problem is that there were other Bible’s during that time as well which were nothing more than revisions of revisions. For instance between the Matthew’s and the Bishop’s there was the Great Bible. If we are to see the King James Version as the perfect English Bible through the refining process we would need to be able to agree on which Bibles were in the process. You see, each Bible was a revision of Tyndale, but future versions were a revision of a revision. The KJV itself was a revision of the Bishops Bible as opposed to popular Geneva Bible which was a revision of the Great Bible. So Tyndale was the base of all of these revisions, but as the tree branched off, new revisions followed different branches. This makes it impossible to claim that the KJV was the one that was ‘Seven Times Purified’ but more like three or four. And if the KJV was the ‘Seven Times Purified’ Bible, then why was it revised itself several times? This argument really isn’t that important, it is only the extremely radical wing of the KJV-Only movement which follow it, but it does go to show the way they will try and make the Bible support their views. Also, it reveals the ignorance in a group who says that the Bible is finished and in no more need of revision, when their very own KJV was continually revised up till 1769, when apparently God stamped it as perfect.
Verse 7 is where the real controversy comes in. Since verse 6 is obviously talking about the Word of God, determining what verse 7 is talking about becomes extremely important. After talking about the words of the Lord in verse 6, the Psalmist uses a pronoun in verse 7, and to whom or what does that pronoun refer? In the KJV the pronoun is ‘them’, which makes it seem as if the Author was referring back to the ‘words of God’ from verse 6, but this pronoun does not insist that it was referring to the ‘words of God’ in verse 6. It is very possible that the pronoun ‘them’ was referring to the people in the earlier verses.
Let’s look at the verse in context:
1 Help, LORD; for the godly man ceaseth; for the faithful fail from among the children of men.
2 They speak vanity every one with his neighbour: with flattering lips and with a double heart do they speak.
3 The LORD shall cut off all flattering lips, and the tongue that speaketh proud things:
4 Who have said, With our tongue will we prevail; our lips are our own: who is lord over us?
5 For the oppression of the poor, for the sighing of the needy, now will I arise, saith the LORD; I will set him in safety from him that puffeth at him.
6 The words of the LORD are pure words: as silver tried in a furnace of earth, purified seven times.
7 Thou shalt keep them, O LORD, thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever.
8 The wicked walk on every side, when the vilest men are exalted.
First of all the Psalmist is David. Let’s follow the Psalm down verse by verse and it should be clear who it is talking about.
In verse 1 the godly man ceases, and the faithful have disappeared.
In verse 2 the ungodly speak vanity and lies to and about.
In verse 3 David states that the Lord cuts off their tongue and flattering lips.
In verse 4 a comment of those who should receive the action in verse 3.
In verse 5 a statement from the Lord stating he will save the poor and needy from those referred to in verse 5.
In verse 6 David pauses to show how trustworthy the word’s of the Lord are, which strengthens the promise he makes in verse 5.
In verse 7 David reiterates the statement from the Lord made in verse 5 concerning saving of the poor and needy.
In verse 8 David refers to the wicked men which shows the importance of the Lord’s salvation of the poor and needy.
In context the Psalm is clear and there is nothing wrong with the King James translator’s use of ‘them’ in verse 7. It still clearly refers to the poor and needy in verse 5. Unfortunately, some people will twist meanings in order to say what they want the words to say. KJV-Onlyist have twisted the meaning of this verse to make the verse support their erroneous doctrine of the perfect King James Version. In reality, it is the KJV which is weak on this verse because it allows for confusion by using ‘them’ in verse 7. Lets look at what some other versions use.
Geneva Bible
Thou wilt keepe them, O Lord: thou wilt preserue him from this generation for euer.
The Geneva Bible uses ‘them’ in the first part, but switches to ‘him’ in the second part to show that the verse is referring to people not the words of God. Remember the Geneva Bible predates the King James Version by several years, so don’t let the KJV-Onlyist tell you that modern versions are trying to destroy the doctrine of preservation. If they do, they are liars.
Bishops Bible
[Wherfore] thou wylt kepe the godly, O God: thou wylt preserue euery one of them from this generation for euer.
The Bishops Bible goes a step further, and actually adds the words ‘the godly’ instead of using a pronoun. This avoids the confusion of someone making the mistake of interpreting a pronoun for the ‘word of God.’ And remember the KJV is a revision of the Bishops Bible. The Translators should have stuck with the wording the Bishops used.
ESV
You, O LORD, will keep them; you will guard us from this generation forever.
The ESV makes it clear by using ‘us’ in the second phrase to show the verse is talking about those in verse 5.
HCSB
You, Lord, will guard us; You will protect us from this generation forever.
The HCSB makes it pretty clear who the pronoun refers to by using ‘us’ in both parts.
If your wondering why there is so much confusion, it goes back to the manuscripts. The pronoun in some Hebrew manuscripts and in the Septuagint reads ‘him’ or ‘them’ which gives the translators a decision to make. By the way, the original KJV 1611 had a marginal note which explained that they were aware of this. What is important to keep in mind is that neither word makes a difference. The context clearly shows that verse 7 should refer to those people in verse 5. This is a clear example of why we can’t let our emotionally charged preferences interpret Scripture.
Historically commentators and theologians have understood the verse to refer to those in verse 5. The following quotes show what great men have believed about the verse:
Thou shalt keep them That is, the persons referred to in Psa 12:5 - the poor and the needy who were suffering from the wrongs inflicted on them. The idea is, that God would guard and defend them. They were safe in his hands. - Albert Barnes, 1798 - 1870
Instead of the pronoun them in these clauses, several MSS., with the Septuagint, the Vulgate, and the Arabic, have us. The sense is equally good in both readings. God did bring forth the Israelites from Babylon, according to his word; he separated them from that generation. and reinstated them in their own land, according to his word; and most certainly he has preserved them from generation to generation to the present day, in a most remarkable manner. Adam Clarke, 1760-1832
Jehovah will keep His poor from the generation of the wicked. But the wicked have full scope when the worthless are exalted on high. John Darby, 1800-1882
Not the words before mentioned, as Aben Ezra explains it, for the affix is masculine and not feminine; not but God has wonderfully kept and preserved the sacred writings; and he keeps every word of promise which he has made; and the doctrines of the Gospel will always continue from one generation to another; but the sense is, that God will keep the poor and needy, and such as he sets in safety, as Kimchi rightly observes: they are not their own keepers, but God is the keeper of them; he keeps them by his power, and in his Son, in whose hands they are, and who is able to keep them from falling; they are kept by him from a total and final falling away; from the dominion and damning power of sin, and from being devoured by Satan, and from the evil of the world: and this the psalmist had good reason to believe, because of the love of God to them, his covenant with them, and the promises of safety and salvation he has made unto them;
“thou shalt preserve him” (p); that is, everyone of the poor and needy, from the wicked generation of men in which they live, from being corrupted or intimidated by them; and who are described in the beginning of the psalm. Some take these words to be a prayer, “keep thou them, O Lord, and preserve them”, &c. (q); and so the following words may be thought to be a reason or argument enforcing the request. John Gill, 1697 -1771
Thou shalt preserve them from this generation for ever. This intimates that, as long as the world stands, there will be a generation of proud and wicked men in it, more or less, who will threaten by their wretched arts to ruin religion, by wearing out the saints of the Most High. But let God alone to maintain his own interest and to preserve his own people. Matthew Henry, 1662 - 1714
I could keep going back further in History and show you that the most respectable theologians agree with the modern versions here. So next time you hear a KJV sermon and the speaker starts off with this verse, pay close attention to everything else he tells you. You will find that it lacks any Biblical evidence and consists almost entirely of unwarranted attacks against other versions, and the people who support them. All men who teach and preach this stuff are not liars, but they are repeating lies which they have been taught. It is unfortunate that so many of them are right about many other issues, and this type of ignorance discredits them in a world where Christians are discredited against enough.
If you have been deceived by the KJV-Only people, you should repent of your ignorance and investigate all the mis-information that you have been taught. You will generally find that not only are they wrong about the KJV, but on many other issues concerning God and His Word as well.
chris,I just wanted to comment about your belief that people who do
not agree with your stance on the kjv only platform are ignorant and
need to repent.I have studied alot over the past few months ,both sides of the argument and I am more convinced now ,then I was before
that the kjv is the only word of God.My pastor,whom preaches on this
subject ,has spent hundreds of hours studying to find the truth,is not a liar.He has been in the ministry longer than you have been alive.I have never found him to preach anything but the truth.I do
not believe my view just because he preaches it, but because I have
studied for myself.All the verses that the new versions leave out
gives me sense enough to know something is wrong with them.I love you
and Rachel .You are my family .But twenty years of walking with the Lord , listening to the Holy Spirit,and wanting the truth,I will
never be able to agree with you on this and what i am seeing,other
issues.But I still care about you guys.
Thanks Kim for your comment. Don’t take the term ignorance as an insult, I am only referring to the lack of knowledge on this particular issue. I think you are a very intelligent person. I also believe that your pastor is a great preacher and a very godly man. However, that does not mean that he has not been deceived, nor does it mean that he is right.
I have listened to just about every sermon he has preached on the KJV issue, and the verse I posted above is one of the very one’s he usually starts with. Do you really think that he doesn’t know what that verse is saying? Kim, it is clear. Can you not see it? Verse 7 in no way supports preservation. Can you not admit that? And if I am right about this verse, how do you know I and others are not correct about others as well?
I really do hope that you have studied it, but what you have written says otherwise.
Nonetheless, Kim we still love you and your family. I am not attacking you or anyone who believes as you believe. You have the right. But I post about this because I am right, and it bothers me that a particular segment of the Christian church has placed an unnecessary divisive issue between it and the rest of the world.
I will deal with another proof text that your pastor and others like to use in a future post. Keep reading.
Chris, just how deceived through your “extensive” studies are you going to become? You word things well, you work hard to make sure there are no mistakes in your “punctuation” and you try to be make people believe “your” philosophy. What I see at stake here is deception for your children. Most of these people that read your “trash” probably have not been fortunate enough to have a man of God try to teach them right, study the scriptures and research the truth such as some of us have. You need to be very careful about going against the Word of God and telling your own ideas and beliefs and trust the Word of God rather than try to rewrite it.
I promise you this, when you are gone and your epitaph is written, The KJV will still be the Word of God. What are you leaving your children with, other than confusing them?
I don’t want you to get the idea that I read this mess often. This is the second or third time I have been on this deceiving mess, however, someone told me to look at it and that I probably would not believe it, however that is not the case because you have always thrived on conterversy.
Also, I was taken back by the fact you are undermining my Pastor. The very scriptures he so often uses in defense of the KJV are the ones above that you began this “craziness” with and I DO NOT APPRECIATE IT. If you are going to attack any man of God, attack one who is unlearned, people will come nearer to following “Chrisism” that way.
Thanks, Wendell, for your comments. I do not know where to begin in responding to this.
Well, let’s start with the deception of my children. God gave those children to Rachel and I, and it is our job to make sure that they are raised according to His Word. The deception would be to allow them to believe the myth that God has only preserved His Word through the King James Bible.
Secondly, I am not trying to “make” anyone believe my view. I hope people who read my post will actually consider what I have written. The above post is logical, and, if you would look at Psalm12:7 in its proper context, it clearly does not deal with preservation.
What bothers me is how you have completely missed the point.
You wrote: “You need to be very careful about going against the Word of God and telling your own ideas and beliefs and trust the Word of God rather than try to rewrite it.”
Excuse me, but how am I rewriting the Word of God? Wendell, I posted several pre-KJV Only references which show that what I am explaining to you is correct. Furthermore, I posted two Bible translations which predated the KJV 1611 and both of them translated the verse in a way which clearly shows that verse 7 is not dealing with preservation of the Word of God. You fail to even acknowledge that.
You look extremely foolish when you get upset about someone posting truth, and attack them with your emotions instead of reason and facts. It really does seem as if you are more concerned with defending your pastor than the Word of God.
For the record, I did not address this post to anyone. A previous commenter brought your pastor into the discussion. As I stated in my reply to her, I love him and respect him, but his views are not infallible. Only the Word of God is perfect, my friend, and all of us are simple-minded peons which must do our best to discern what it says and how it should be applied.
I am in no way undermining your pastor. He is a grown man and he is very capable of defending himself. I am sure that he would tell you himself that he is not perfect, and that he is subject to mistake. I believe that he is mistaken in this area. However, that should not discourage you, nor should it offend you. It should cause you to consider the facts and search out a way to rectify the situation. If it turns out that I am right, you should do as I said in my post and repent of your ignorance. If you find me to be incorrect then it would be proper and fitting for you to correct me. However, don’t just get on here with your emotional rhetoric, but present facts and a logical argument. I will consider your words carefully.
You are right about one thing, when my epitaph is written the KJV will still be the Word of God, along with the NKJV, the NASB, the ESV, the HCSB and all the other valid translations that have come by the hand and mind of man. But my children will not be confused because they will be perfectly aware of these facts.
Well, I really don’t think there is much more to say at this time. But, Wendell, I love you and would be happy to help you in this area.
Thanks again for your comment, and God Bless you, my brother, as you search for the Truth.
“Only the word of God is perfect” you are 100% correct so how can multiple versions be? I am not going to argue with you because it is useless and you are going to be right no matter what because that is what you are about, therefore, you will answer to God, not Wendell or some church. But I would ask you to just be simple minded as I am and realize the Bible teaches God changes not and that He is the Word, thus how can multiple versions be correct? Simple, but factual and you can’t argue that.
For the record, you need not bother trying to “HELP” me with this area. That is almost comical.
As for repenting of my ignorance, I did that March 10, 1996 and have just simply took the KJV word of God and it is still working today.
God is not the author of confusion and I promise you “what Bible will we carry today to follow along in church” would be not only confusing but ignorant.
I will not be writing back as I have much better ways to spend my time.
Thanks, Wendell. I appreciate that you posted with your actual name and email address, as opposed to impersonating my wife by using her name and a fake email address. I was wondering who did that last week, and your inadvertent double post cleared that up for me. (After a long talk on the phone with Wendell, I take this paragraph back. Wendell ensured me that he nor anyone in his home has ever responded to my blog using my wife’s name with a fake email address. The mystery remains as to why it was stored in his computers memory, and who the mysterious commenter was.)
Now, for your comment, when you have multiple versions that disagree with one another then either one is right and the other wrong or they are both wrong. However, most of the time when people make a big deal about differences between two versions it is simply a matter of preference in words used by the translators. A perfect example is the above post where the KJV used the pronoun “them” in two places, where other versions including the Bishops Bible (which the KJV is a revision of) made the verse clearer by choosing to use different words or wording. However, the context clears it up, and there is no issue other than the fact that the KJV causes confusion. Hence, you have a huge load of preachers telling people that Psalm 12:7 teaches preservation.
As you know from listening to your pastor, the KJV is translated from a different Greek text than many modern versions. This is where the proportionately few disagreements come from. If you paid attention to your pastor as he taught, you would know that there are hundreds and hundreds of manuscripts which were compiled and used as the base Greek text to translate the KJV. There were at least five texts compiled which they had available. These all had variants. When the KJV translators came to an area of disagreement they had to choose a particular reading. They were not inspired. Only the original writers of Scripture were. They were merely men, and they did the best they could. If you would read the preface to the 1611 KJV you would see this.
What all this means is that there is no perfect translation. The KJV is not perfect, nor is the NKJV, the ISV, the NIV, the NASB, or any other translation to come. God did not choose to give us a perfect Bible in English, but He did see fit to give us His Word through the efforts of men.
I know this seems impossible for you to believe, but that is the way it is. As far as you repenting of your ignorance in 1996, I assume you mean your conversion. Praise God! However, repentance is an ongoing thing in the life of the believer, and willful ignorance is a sin.
Don’t bind God to the King James Version, He is bigger than that.
I don’t blame you for not writing back as you refuse to discuss the issue with facts or logic. You would do better to just read and learn.
God Bless you, Wendell, and have a wonderful Sunday.
Chris,
Sometime could you explain the KJV-onlyism thing to me a bit more? I don’t understand how any one English version of the Bible could be considered the only version of THE WORD OF GOD… Was God not concerned about the salvation of pre-1611 English speaking people? Did they not have the Word of God? What about the majority of the world that doesn’t speak English? Is God not interested in speaking to them? Are Bible translations in other languages supposed to come only from the KJV? Or can they be translated from the Greek and Hebrew?
Really, this all makes very little sense to me. In all my years growing up in the church, attending Bible college and seminary, talking to Christians of almost every flavor, I’ve never seen anything like this. Most doctrinal differences have a good argument on both sides… I’m not sure I’ve seen one that makes sense for the King James Only Movement.
I’m trying to find the motivation in believing this way. Here are a few reasons that come to mind.
Loyalty:
I think for many people, they don’t dare look into various issues because they’re afraid of contradicting their spiritual leaders. They can’t bear to think that their Godly preacher could be so fundamentally wrong. That would suggest that he’s fallible, which means he could be wrong about something else.
Social Ties:
People are also held back by their social ties. Social groups [like a church or faith movement] keep members in step using emotional rhetoric and well-meaning manipulation. To protect themselves from different opinions, groups use guilt, fear and the threat of separation to keep people from questioning common beliefs and practices. Most people aren’t brave enough to risk their social standing simply in search of the Truth.
Comfort:
Is it just that people get uncomfortable when they realize that God didn’t deliver a complete, leather bound, red-letter Bible to the apostle Paul? Can they not deal with the uncomfortable questions that come up when they learn how the canon came together? Maybe they cling to KJV onlyism for comfort.
Culture:
Or is it that they’ve confused culture with gospel? We all tend to think the way we’ve always done it is the way it’s supposed to be done. Christians all over the world continue to worship in ancient languages that make no sense to them. Russian Orthodox Christians worship in Old Church Slavonic, a language created in the 9th century that bears little resemblance to the language they speak now. People in my neighborhood will attend a Latin Mass tomorrow. They’ll sit through church and worship God in a language they don’t understand, simply because that’s how it has always been done. The language became so ingrained in their culture that eventually people labeled it holy.
I think that’s what it might be, a self-centered confusion of one’s own culture with Christianity.
Theologian John Stott said, “If we come to Scripture with our minds made up and closed, we will never hear the thunderclap of his Word. All we hear is what we want to hear, the soothing echoes of our own cultural prejudice.”
Chris, thanks for this post. I look forward to reading more in this series. I’d love to understand both sides of the debate.
Very good reasons, and I am sure that all of them play a part. I am working on a post about the beginnings of the KJV-Only movement. I should address some of those issues in it. Just don’t hold your breath, I still have a bit of research to do.
Chris, thanks for portraying an open-minded, logical, factual explanation of an obvious emotional subject. I appreciate the insight, and am challenged by your zeal for the truth.
Thank you!
Chris,
I just want to leave this advice for you. And this will be my only comment on this. Be careful not to contradict yourself. You said on another post, “I believe in the inspiration and total innerancy of the Scriptures.” Then you stated on this one, “What all this means is that there is no perfect translation. The KJV is not perfect, nor is the NKJV, the ISV, the NIV, the NASB, or any other translation to come. God did not choose to give us a perfect Bible in English, but He did see fit to give us His Word through the efforts of men.” I think what you meant was (the innerancy of the Scriptures in the original text) You know as I that this is a text issue…not a translation issue. I agree with you that many KJV only people don’t know any better and are following men like Peter Ruckman. I believe we have God’s perserved Word in our English language in the KJV because the “received text” was used to translate from. That’s the issue–the TR or the “critical text”.
Anyway, if we don’t have the preserved Word of God, it’s anyone’s guess what God really said.
I just wanted to comment and try to help you clarify your statements. Take care.
Ryan, thanks for your comment. I do not believe that I have contradicted myself. 2 Timothy 3:16 says “all Scripture is breathed out by God.” So when I refer to Scripture, I am referring to that which was inspired, and that is inerrant. Now, as long as the Bible which we have today is in agreement with the teachings, I do not have a problem saying it is inerrant as well. The meaning of inerrancy has been debated for many years now, and people still do not agree on it.
That being said, it is a text issue. Since their are no two MSS which read alike, then we rely on the work which men have done to select the correct readings. God chose to use men to do this task.
I respect the argument of those who support the “Textus Receptus” and the “Majority Text,” but who do not insist that the KJV is perfect, or that either of those texts are perfect. In other words, they support modern translations of the “Textus Receptus” and “Majority Text.” There are several men out there which hold this position. Maurice Robinson, Zane Hodges, Theodore Letis, and Jay P. Green are a few. And there are many good translations based on the “TR” or “Majority Text.” But when a “TR” person rejects these other translations and claims the KJV only is perfect, then he is doing the same thing as those who follow Ruckman.
The KJV is merely a translation. God preserved His word through the efforts of men, because that is what He chose to do. It was preserved before the KJV, before Erasmus, and it will be preserved from now on. And God’s words will not pass away.
I know that my argument seems contradictory to some, but nothing is as contradictory as KJV-Only.
Chris,
Interesting. Could you give me a list of those translations that are based on the TR?
Sure,
Off the top of my head
Tyndale
Geneva
Great Bible
Bishop’s Bible
Webster’s Revision of the King James Version
Modern King James Version
Young’s Literal Version
The Literal Version (Green’s)
New King James Version (Yes, it really is)
Easy Reading King James Version
KJV 21
Majority Text Based Versions - The Majority text is a more recently compiled Greek Text based on the same family of mss as the Textus Receptus.
One was compiled by Maurice Robinson a strong Majority text advocate and Greek professor. The other by Zane Hodges and Arthur Farstad. Since many more Byzantine family manuscripts have been found since the work of Erasmus, Beza, and Stephens, these works are considered superior. They agree with the TR almost exactly, but since there are variants it would be impossible for them to be exact. Of course you know that no two editions of the TR (which wasn’t so named until after the KJV translators used a pick and choose method) are the same.
World English Bible
English Majority Text Version
Analytical Literal Translation
KJ3
Hope this helps. Sorry it took so long, I have been doing homework, and didn’t see the message.
Thanks!
Chris,
I really didn’t word my question right. I meant ” modern versions”. I knew about all those earlier ones and even the NKJV. I was given a NKJV by my dad and mom when I was ordained in 1992. I preached out of it for many years because they had used the TR. But one day I realized they also used critical Greek New Testament text and Kittel’s Hebrew Old Testament critical test rather that the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text. You find this in the preface of a NKJV. The others I have never heard of but I will look forward to checking them out. In my seminary class on the preservation of the text these were never mentioned. Again I guess my question should have stated “based entirely on the TR.” Thanks again.
When will this KJ-only nonsense stop?
God’s Word did not originate in English and never will be proven of any more value than the best we have today.
Pride and Arrogance of the first order are obvious in pro-KJ posts.
Tom