Expert: Marvin Howard - 11/16/2008

Question
Hi bro Ernie, I am a member of the church of Christ, now here in Bahrain. I would like to ask your clarification on the KJV having "some errors". I have read one of your comments that KJV has some errors. I personally believe the KJV has no error (apart from typographical/printing errors). And here are my reasons why:
1) God says that His word endures forever. And I believe His word is preserved in the KJV. Even if we humans think that we are fallible, God's word is not. God in His wisdom allows men to choose to good or evil, even in their sincerity or dishonesty in themselves, God still accomplishes His purpose. And that happens, I believe in the translation of KJV by people that God uses. Otherwise, if KJV is in error, we are saying God's word is in error. I believe you get my point, though I did not stated as articulately.
2. I have seen many errors in other versions just like those passages omitted (mark 16:9-20, etc.). But KJV has those passages. This is because KJV uses the Majority Text. (Pls see kjv website.)

Other reasons why I believe KJV is the un-errant Word of God is found in the KJV website. Although the most convincing reason is the first proof I have said above.

I would like you thoughts on this.

Answer
Hi!

Brother Maek, I may not be Brother Ernie, but I will try to answer this for you.

I believe God's Word endures forever. However, that is the inspired Word; that which was first spoken by the Holy Spirit and then written in the original languages. We still have this. We can still study this. Translators were not inspired. Scholarly they were (some more than others), but translations are the result of man's wisdom.

With that said, I would like to include a couple of articles (in answer to questions) at this point that I wrote just two years ago, concerning the inspiration of the Scriptures and translation preference.

Do you believe that the scriptures are verbally inspired of God and are all authoritative?

2nd Timothy 3:16-17, “All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness: That the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works.”

The first part of your question deals with whether the Scriptures are inspired, or come by inspiration. In light of this passage, my answer is yes. In actuality, there is no word in the Greek that is simply translated simply as “inspiration.” In fact, one word is translated as “inspiration,” and the additional, prepositional phrase; “of God.” That you may know I have knowledge of the meaning, I offer the Greek definition, and a short explanation of this definition, in my own words.

θεόπνευστος
theopneustos
theh-op'-nyoo-stos
From G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154; divinely breathed in: - given by inspiration of God.

Thus says Strong’s Lexicon.

θεόπνευστος
theopneustos
Thayer Definition:
1) inspired by God
1a) the contents of the scriptures
Part of Speech: adjective
A Related Word by Thayer’s/Strong’s Number: from G2316 and a presumed derivative of G4154 Citing in TDNT: 6:453, 876

Thus says Thayer’s Lexicon.

Basically, the definition infers that the Scriptures, all of them, are the very breath of God. Such breath is given when speaking. Can we use Scripture to further define the breath of God? Yes, I believe we can. Why would this be important? There are several reasons, but here are the two main reasons. First, there are many who have a lesser view of Scriptures than they ought. This first reason is brought out in the first part of your question. Secondly, there are many who claim divine revelations of the Holy Spirit today. This second reason is brought out by the second part of your question, and will be discussed at the appropriate time.

Spirit and inspiration carry the same root word, etymologically speaking; spire. A spire (noun) is somewhere with a breathtaking view. To respire (i.e., respiration) is for us to breathe repetitively, and to expire (i.e., expiration) is for us to breathe our last, or die. Therefore, to spire (verb) is the equivalent of to breathe. So, what then is the Word, the breath, of God?

John 1:1 & 14, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God…And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.”

Jesus is the Word of God. Also, we must consider this passage and others like it.

John 14:23-27, “Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me. These things have I spoken unto you, being yet present with you. But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you. Peace I leave with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.”

The Comforter, that is to say the Holy Spirit, came in the name of (i.e., by the authority of) Jesus. Moreover, since the word spirit has the same root word we discussed earlier, spire, the Holy Spirit is also the breath of God.

The fact that the Father breathed, and Jesus is the breath of God, and the Spirit is also the breath of God, and that the Scriptures are the breath of God demonstrates soundly that the Father, Son, and Spirit, though three, are in fact one, and that the Scriptures are one with them. Thus, the contents of the Bible are far more important than any other book, and should be respected and handled accordingly, according to 2nd Timothy 2:15.

This brings us to the second part of your question, and the second reason for its importance; that is, authority of the Scriptures, as opposed to “divine” revelation given at another time (e.g., today).

John 17:17, “Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.”

We previously discussed how Jesus is the Word. Here, we find that the Word is Truth.

John 4:24, “God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.”

God must be worshipped in Spirit and in Truth. Since Jesus is the Word, and the Word is Truth, then worship must be conducted in accordance with the Word of Jesus; God, the Son. Worship must be conducted in accordance with the Bible. While this specifically covers worship, what does the Bible/the Spirit/Jesus say about other aspects of religion?

Matthew 28:18, “And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth.”

Normally, the word “power” comes from the Greek δύναμις dunamis (pronounced doo'-nam-is), and is the etymological root of our word “dynamite.” This is “power,” as used in Romans 1:16 and many other places in the Bible, and has a meaning of “strength.” However, “power,” as used here, is not limited to strength, though that is included. Here is the Strong’s definition of “power” as used in reference to Jesus in Matthew’s account.

εξουσία
exousia
ex-oo-see'-ah
From G1832 (in the sense of ability); privilege, that is, (subjectively) force, capacity, competency, freedom, or (objectively) mastery (concretely magistrate, superhuman, potentate, token of control), delegated influence: - authority, jurisdiction, liberty, power, right, strength.

Thayer echoes the definition’s inclusion of “authority” in the meaning of this word. In fact, this is the source of our English word, “exude.” In other words, this is something that comes out of every pore of Jesus’ Being. Therefore, Jesus declares that He has all “authority” in Heaven and on earth. Since the Bible is, by extension, Jesus Himself, then all religious authority for us is found in the Bible.

Colossians 3:17, “And whatsoever ye do in word or deed, do all in the name of the Lord Jesus, giving thanks to God and the Father by him.”

The context of this passage proceeds from the singing of worship (v. 16) and continues through the relationship of wives and husbands (vv. 17ff). This indicates that doing things in the name of Jesus (e.g., by His authority) extends past things we do in worship, to everyday life. Religion is not merely a system of belief, but it is a system of belief upon which one bases his/her entire life in devout, studious, and assiduous practice.

Hebrews 1:1-4, “God who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets, Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds; Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.”

Yes, the Scriptures are verbally inspired by God. Yes, they contain every whit of authority available to any man. If you believe the Scriptures, there is no room left for any other, whether a supposed prophet, or not. Moses is no longer a valid source of authority. Mohammed is not a source of authority. Nimrod, Nichren, Nietzsche, Ra, Isis, Shiva, and Buddha are not sources of authority. Ratsinger is not a source of authority. Luther is not a source of authority. Calvin is not a source of authority. Lucado is not a source of authority. Smith is not a source of authority. No other denominational founder or leader is a source of authority. Likewise, I am not a source of authority, nor is any other man, woman, or child, living or dead, real or imagined, past, present, or future.

What Bible translation do you prefer, and why?

It is probably quite obvious from my other answers, but I have an extremely strong preference to the King James. It is the Bible on which I was raised. It is the Bible with which I am most familiar. It is the Bible for which there are the most study helps. This allows others to follow and study after me more easily. It is the most accurate English translation of the most accurate texts available to man. It is the only version I know that has been translated into other languages (i.e., Thai and Cyrillic). It is a very rare occasion when I use another version for other than my personal studies. Even when I do, I only use it to make a point from the KJV: usually to point out places where the King’s English has undergone some major change in the last four centuries, and to get a modern understanding of an archaic term or a transliteration. However, I am not going to condemn anyone who uses another translation. Even the most perverted out there contain enough truth to teach people how to be saved, even if the information is obscured.

I believe that any translation taken from the Textus Receptus, such as the KJV, is fairly authoritative. All translations from the original, ancient languages have difficulties. There are idioms, colloquialisms, and language shift with which we must deal.

The vast majority of translations and versions, even the KJV, have doctrinal agendas within their pages. With all, a return to the original languages is necessary to some extent. One such example of difficulty from the KJV is the teaching of sprinkling, since the King believed in sprinkling rather than immersion. The translating scholars feared for their lives if they were accurate and contradicted the king’s beliefs. Thus, rather than translate βάπτισμα, or βαπτίζω, as forms of immersion, they were transliterated to baptism and baptize. This is one example of a language shift.

Judges 3:24, “When he was gone out, his servants came; and when they saw that, behold, the doors of the parlour were locked, they said, Surely he covereth his feet in his summer chamber.”

This is a colloquialism of 17th century English. To the average reader, this would not convey the meaning of having a bowel movement without some additional study.

There are so many more copies of textual fragments supporting a singular message with the T-R than there are of the Westcott-Hort. Also, the W-H fragments contain many differences, both from the T-R and itself, no one can be sure which are accurate and which are spurious, unless they already know the truth.

Aside from the translations are the versions. I am aware that the King James calls itself a version, but in truth it is a translation for the most part. A translation tells the same story, but in another language, while a version tells a different story in the same language. Compare this truth with a judge in small claims court. When he turns from the plaintiff to the defendant, he will usually ask something along the lines of, “What’s your version of events.” He knows that he is about to get a story that differs in at least one major point, if not many or all.

I would strongly advise against using any version based upon the W-H. Newer (or more recently discovered) is not always better. Oftentimes something is newer simply because the changes made cannot be found (or were not accepted) in earlier versions. There are two of these versions that come to mind immediately and specifically. I prefer to call them perversions. They are the NLT and the NIV. While I have seen no compiled data for the NLT, I have for the NIV. In one of his tracts which is now out of print, Brother A.G. Hobbs documents the number of changes, and even outright deletions, included (or omitted as the case may be) in the NIV. If memory serves, the number of deletions of partial or even whole verses numbers in the mid to upper hundreds, and the adulterations number over 3,000! In any case, there was so much information the tract was printed in five volumes, and barely scratched the surface of the issue. From what I have personally read in the NLT, many (though not all) of the included changes and deletions are identical. While I advise against use of any W-H text, I strongly an actively discourage the use of these two versions.

I have combined access to 80 different versions and translations, in many languages (roughly 40 in English) for my web ministry. I preach in English, and people from other nations often approach me in English. However, when I discover their nationality, my responses will include Scriptures in their native tongue, to make the second language speakers of English more comfortable and to promote further understanding. Additionally, I have access to the NASB in hard copy, even though I do not have it electronically. With all this variety, the KJV still fits me best, like the proverbial glove. To me, it is family. It represents comfort. It represents strength. And most importantly, it represents accuracy and truth. I am so immersed in the language I often pray as though I were in 17th century England (or a close proximity thereof as the KJV has actually changed since then, and I do have the original for comparison) when I vocalize prayers, either public or private. The rhythm and poetic style of that tome captivate and mesmerize me no end when I read. I can seemingly go back in time to the events as they happen. It is my hope and prayer that all people would get a KJV, and learn to understand it. It is also my prayer that the KJV may be translated into even more languages in the near future, that the whole world may share in its magnificent beauty.

I am not an advocate of the “King James Only” crowd. If the KJV were the only acceptable version, then anyone not speaking English could be saved. Likewise, if the KJV was the only reliable version, then there were no Christians prior to 1611. One must carry any declaration to its logical conclusion to see if it is either plausible or supercilious.

Brother Maek, I hope this furthers your understanding of this most important topic. Please let me know if there is any other information with which I can assist you, even if it is just clarification on this.

In His Service,
Marvin Howard