Unbounded Words

Footnotes and Marginal notes are added by the translators and editors of the modern Bible translations to point out places where there are variants in the available manuscripts. When translators are aware of these variants, they must make a decision on which reading they believe to be authentic. Since the translators are aware that they are human, and are subject to make mistakes, they have decided to add the footnotes so that the readers will be aware of the alternate readings. If the translators did not do this, most readers would have no way of knowing there is a difference.

Often I come across the argument by KJV-Only advocates that footnotes or marginal notes in the modern translations are an attempt to remove, or cast doubt on the true reading of the Bible. Obviously, this is not true. Unfortunately, KJV-Only advocates use this type of deceptive reasoning often, in order to persuade gullible Bible believers that their position is correct.

This argument is especially true of the the New King James Version. As you may know, the New King James Version is translated from the same Greek Text as the original King James Version. The goal of the translators was to produce a version which would update the text of the KJV to modern English. They were committed to follow the Textus Receptus as closely as possible. However, they did use footnotes in places, in order to show the reader that there are alternate readings in other manuscripts. However, they always followed the same reading as the KJV in the actual text.

If this is true, why is there so much hatred for the New King James Version? It truly is a hatred. One preacher said the following, “The New King James Version may be the most dangerous of the modern versions.”

Why would he say that? Well, according to him, since the New King James is supposed to be based on the Textus Receptus, believers might actually believe that it is the Word of God. The readers will not know the difference. They may begin to read those little footnotes, and fall into apostasy. Or maybe, he is just worried that they will see that the KJV is only another translation, and that the KJV translators did make decisions on which reading they would follow. And that would prove that KJV-Onlyism is a myth.

Let’s look at two statements on the footnotes in the New King James Version by popular KJV-Only authors:

D. A. Waite:

“The diabolical nature of the New King James Version shows itself in their printing all the various readings of the Greek text in the footnotes. They print all sides and take their stand in favor of none of them. By so doing, they confuse the readers. The editors have made no decision as to what God’s Words really are.”

Bill Grady:

“When a study is made of the footnote section in the NKJV, one discovers a classic example of compromise. Understanding the self-centered nature of today’s carnal believers, Nelson Publishers decided to let their customers have a literal choice between three different Greek readings!…Can you imagine the confusion being wrought among laypeople as they suddenly discover their new responsibilities to become textual critics?”

Waite calls it a “diabolical nature” and Grady say it is a “classic example of compromise.” How is it a compromise? All the translators are doing is making the readers aware that variants exist in a particular reading. Then both Grady and Waite assume that the readers will be totally confused by variants. I have to believe that it will make them more informed, and not confused. I think what confuses them is when KJV-Onlyists constantly bring attacks on modern versions and their supporters.

Below is the actual words of the editors of the New King James Version which can be found in its Preface. Notice carefully their reason for using footnotes. Notice that their is nothing “diabolical in nature.” Notice that they do not make judgment on the superiority nor inferiority of the alternate readings, but simply note that they are present, and what they say. How do Waite and Grady come up with their conclusions? Maybe they have an agenda, and will do or say anything to sell it?

Significant explanatory notes, alternate translations, and cross-references, as well as New Testament citations of Old Testament passages, are supplied in the footnotes.

Important textual variants in the Old Testament are identified in a standard form.

The textual notes in the present edition of the New Testament make no evaluation of readings, but do clearly indicate the manuscript sources of readings. They objectively present the facts without such tendentious remarks as “the best manuscripts omit” or “the most reliable manuscripts read.” Such notes are value judgments that differ according to varying viewpoints on the text. By giving a clearly defined set of variants the New King James Version benefits readers of all textual persuasions.

So, the New King James (and other modern versions) has footnotes. But what about the King James Version? Why didn’t its translators believe in footnotes? Well, they did. Below is the actual words of Miles Smith from the section of the original KJV 1611, “The Translators to the Readers:”

Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. For though, whatsoever things are necessary are manifest, as S. Chrysostom saith, and as S. Augustine, In those things that are plainly set down in the Scriptures, all such matters are found that concern Faith, Hope, and Charity. Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God’s spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve, to resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case altogether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est dubitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain. There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, (having neither brother nor neighbor, as the Hebrews speak) so that we cannot be holpen by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. concerning which the Hebrews themselves are so divided among themselves for judgment, that they may seem to have defined this or that, rather because they would say something, than because they were sure of that which they said, as S. Jerome somewhere saith of the Septuagint. Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident: so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption. Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. We know that Sixtus Quintus expressly forbiddeth, that any variety of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margin, (which though it be not altogether the same thing to that we have in hand, yet it looketh that way) but we think he hath not all of his own side his favorers, for this conceit. They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other. If they were sure that their high Priest had all laws shut up in his breast, as Paul the Second bragged, and that he were as free from error by special privilege, as the Dictators of Rome were made by law inviolable, it were another matter; then his word were an Oracle, his opinion a decision. But the eyes of the world are now open, God be thanked, and have been a great while, they find that he is subject to the same affections and infirmities that others be, that his skin is penetrable, and therefore so much as he proveth, not as much as he claimeth, they grant and embrace.

So, as you can see, the KJV translators recognized that there are areas of uncertainty in Scripture. They believed that a wise man would want to know, and be at liberty to weigh the evidence, as opposed to being left in the dark. It is obvious that they did not believe that they were producing a perfect translation. It is also clear that they believed that studying multiple versions of the Scripture is wise. Waite and Grady obviously believe that the readers of the Bible should only study the KJV. They would rather have readers ignorant of alternate readings and variants in the text. They believe the reader should be left in the dark. It seems strange to me that they would disagree with the translators on this point, when they praise them for their great wisdom and godliness in other points in their writings.

The next thing I want to discuss is the actual text of the New King James Version. In another post on this blog, a commenter mentioned that he quit using the NKJV when he learned that it used other texts than the Greek Textus Receptus, and the traditional Hebrew Masoretic text, which are used by the KJV Bible. As I already mentioned in this post, the NKJV did use the Textus Receptus. However, they also footnoted the variants which are found in both the Majority Text and the Greek Critical Text. The editors of the NKJV explain their method and reason here:

In light of these facts, and also because the New King James Version is the fifth revision of a historic document translated from specific Greek texts, the editors decided to retain the traditional text in the body of the New Testament and to indicate major Critical and Majority Text variant readings in the popup notes. Although these variations are duly indicated in the popup notes of the present edition, it is most important to emphasize that fully eighty-five percent of the New Testament text is the same in the Textus Receptus, the Alexandrian Text, and the Majority Text.

And in this excerpt from the section on footnotes:

Where significant variations occur in the New Testament Greek manuscripts, textual notes are classified as follows:

1. NU-Text. These variations from the traditional text generally represent the Alexandrian or Egyptian type of text described previously in “The New Testament Text.” They are found in the Critical Text published in the twenty-sixth edition of the Nestle-Aland Greek New Testament (N) and in the United Bible Societies’ third edition (U), hence the acronym, “NU-Text.”

2. M-Text. This symbol indicates points of variation in the Majority Text from the traditional text, as also previously discussed in “The New Testament Text.” It should be noted that M stands for whatever reading is printed in the published Greek New Testament According to the Majority Text, whether supported by overwhelming, strong, or only a divided majority textual tradition.

The textual notes reflect the scholarship of the past 150 years and will assist the reader to observe the variations between the different manuscript traditions of the New Testament. Such information is generally not available in English translations of the New Testament.

So as you can see, not only did they note where alternate readings and variants exist, but they even note which Greek text differs from the KJV. But note, the NKJV almost always uses the TR reading in the actual text. One argument which often comes up is when the NKJV seems to agree more with modern versions than the KJV. This has to do with the modern English word used, and not the underlying text. In areas where a Majority text reading was used, instead of the KJV’s TR reading, then a footnote will explain why.

For the Old Testament text, it is true that they followed the 1967/77 Stuttgart Edition of the Biblia Hebraica, but the Preface also states that they followed the Bomberg 1524-25 edition. The Bomberg Text is the edition that was followed by the KJV translators, however they also made reference to the Latin, as well as to the Greek Old Testament they had available. This may have been, because all of the Hebrew Old Testament was not available at the time, or it was in question, and they used the more common Latin version to translate into English. However, the 1967/77 Stuttgart is not a new text, it is based on the same Masoretic Hebrew text that was edited later by Ben Chayyim, and published by Bomberg. The only difference is that it was edited directly from the 10th century manuscript, taking into consideration more recent scholarship, and developments in textual recovery. Thus, it is the same text. The NKJV Preface also notes that recent findings such as the Dead Sea Scrolls which were not discovered until 1947 through 1979, were also consulted.

If these facts aren’t enough to comfort you, then let me give you the words of the editor of the Old Testament of the New King James Version, Dr. James D. Price:

As former executive editor of the NKJV Old Testament, I can confidently assure you that the NKJV fol­lowed, as carefully as possible, the Bomberg 1524-25 Ben Chayyim edition that the KJV 1611 translators used–I personally made sure.

Dr. Price also noted that the differences between the Stuttgart Edition and the Ben Chayyim Edition used by the KJV translators were microscopic, and in only eight places it would have made a difference in translation. Dr. Price states that in those eight places, the NKJV follows the KJV reading.

So, you can either take the words of the KJV-Onlyist, self-proclaimed experts, or you can take the words of the man who was actually there.

I do not expect to change the mind of most of those who read this, but I do hope that people would check into some of the lies, and misinformation which they are being taught. I am not an expert on these topics, but the correct information is available.

Here area few quick resources:

www.bible-researcher.com/versions.html - Here you can find the history of the versions, as well as the KJV’s Translators to the Readers and NKJV Preface

www.kjvonly.org - Doug Kutilek’s site with many great articles

www.jamesdprice.com - This site has several articles dealing with the text by a man who actually knows what he is talking about when it comes to Bible translations.

Also two books which I like:

King James Onlyism: A New Sect - Dr. James D. Price

Differences Between Bible Versions - Gary F. Zeolla

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.