Something For the KJV-Onlyist To Wrestle With

I recently encountered a King James Only individual who said, "I even take the position that God’s hand was in the division of that text into its 1,189 chapters and 31,102 verses." He also said, "You have to have faith to call your Bible perfect. It has to come from a position of faith," citing Hebrews 11:6. He argued, "Where does God say that he permits competing, conflicting 'versions' in English that are all to be considered equally 'the Bible' and chosen based on personal preference?" Let's examine what is wrong with his arguments, shall we.

First of all, I hope this guy can see the corner he has painted himself into. Based on his question, where does he get the idea he can have the personal preference of the Authorized Version over any other translation while ignoring every version to come before it? Wycliffe's Bible (1382), Tyndale's New Testament (1523), Coverdale's Bible (1535), Matthew's Bible (1535), Taverner's Bible (1539), Great Bible (1539), Geneva Bible (1560), Bishop's Bible (1568). Where does he get the idea that the Authorized Version is the Word of God but none of these others are? Personal preference, that is where.

Second of all, if even the chapters and verses had God's hand upon them, that means that everything in the 1611 Authorized Version had God's hand upon them. This includes the marginal notes, what the translators had to say in "The Translators to the Reader," and the Apocrypha, which was included in the 1611 Authorized Version. If God's hand was upon the marginal notes included in the Authorized Version, this includes Luke 17:36, which reads: "This 36 verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies." You know what is telling about this marginal note? The translators were not using a "Textus Receptus"! They were examining many Greek copies. And guess what? This 36th verse was not in most of them! How can we tell that this is true? Simple. Examine the 1560 Geneva Bible. Uh oh! The 36th verse is missing. Verse 37 is verse 36 in the 1560 Geneva Bible, which predates the Geneva by 51 years. All modern translations have the same marginal note as the Authorized Version, yet they are attacked as being "Satan's" Bibles.

The translators of the Authorized Version themselves condemn what the King James Only person erects as their foundation built upon wet sand. Consider the following, as stated in "The Translators to the Reader":

1. They believed the authority was in the originals.

"The originall thereof being from heauen, not from earth; the authour being God, not man; the enditer, the holy spirit, not the wit of the Apostles or Prophets" (p.3).

2. They believed in making new translations.

"Now to the later we answere; that wee doe not deny, nay wee affirme and auow, that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English, set foorth by men of our profession containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God" (p.7).

"But the diference that appeareth betweene our Translations, and our often correcting of them, is the thing that wee are specially charged with" (p.8).

3. They believed they were not inspired, but translators.

"Truly (good Christian Reader) wee neuer thought from the beginning, that we should neede to make a new Translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one, but to make of a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principall good one" (p.9).

4. They believed in putting varying readings in the margin.

"It hath pleased God in his diuine prouidence, here and there to scatter wordes and sentences of that difficultie and doubtfulnesse, not in doctrinall points that concerne saluation, (for in such it hath beene vouched that the Scripture are plaine) but in matters of lesse moment" (p.10)

"That any varietie of readings of their vulgar edition, should be put in the margine … They that are wise, had rather haue their iudgements at libertie in differences of readings, then to be captiuated to one, when it may be another" (p.10).

5. They said a variety of translations were necessary.

"That varietie of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures" (p.10).

6. They believed Scripture should be in common language.

"But we desire that the Scripture may speake like it selfe, as in the language of Canaan, that it may bee vnderstood euen of the very vulgar" (p11).

If God had his hand in the addition of the chapters and verses, then He also had His hand in the placement of the marginal notes, the words of the translators in "The Translators to the Reader," and the Apocrypha! Sorry, King James Only person, but you do not get to pick and choose what you claim is or is not part of the hand of God. Either all of it is, or none of it is!

Third of all, if the Authorized Version is perfect because you have to come from a position of "faith" that it is perfect, then what do you say to the person who comes from a position of "faith" that the NIV is perfect? Uh oh! Now you have a problem. What if, God forbid, someone comes from a position of "faith" that The Message is perfect? Then what? Whether you have "faith" that your translation of the Bible is perfect or not does not make it perfect! That is known as a pipe dream. A fantasy. Faith can be blind, you know, especially when you outright deny and reject the facts, as most King James Only people do. Some King James Only people will even go so far as to claim that the Authorized Version is more perfect and inspired than the original autographs penned by their authors!!! That is not "faith," that is insanity!

Last of all, it is a well-established fact that where there is persecution, Christ's church thrives. So if that same principle is applied to Bible translation, John Wycliffe's translation endured persecution, William Tyndale's translation endured persecution, and the Geneva Bible endured double the persecution. But the Authorized Version experienced zero persecution. The Geneva Bible was book-ended by religious persecution. At the front end of it, it was persecuted by Queen "Bloody" Mary Tudor and the Catholic church. At the rear end of it, it was persecuted by King James, the Anglican church, and the Authorized Version, trying to force the people to use no other Bible than the KJV. And your intelligent ancestors would have none of it.

You see, the Authorized Version experienced zero persecution. It was not translated under any sort of persecution. In fact, it was a government sanctioned translation. Could you imagine a translation of the Bible commissioned by Nebuchadnezzar? How about one commissioned by United States of America President Barack Obama? How about one commissioned by Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau? Think about it, King James Only people!!!

The Authorized Version is an excellent translation, but it is not perfect. It is not inspired, inerrant, or infallible. If you want to believe it is, go right ahead. But your "faith" that it is perfect does not nullify someone else's "faith" that the NIV is perfect. The Authorized Version is not the Bible that would indicate God having His hand upon it. If any Bible could claim that, it is the Geneva Bible, which was book-ended by religious persecution and endured in the face of it. Where there is persecution, Christ's church flourishes. Apply this principle to the translation of the Bible, and the Geneva Bible comes out on top. If any Bible were to be called "Satan's" Bible, the Authorized Version would earn that title hands down, being government sanctioned, and persecuting God's people, trying to force them to use it while they fled clutching their beloved Geneva Bible. But it is not "Satan's" Bible any more than the NIV would be.

Either it is all from God's hand (including the Apocrypha, which was included in the 1611 Authorized Version), or it is not! You cannot pick and choose, King James Only people. Make up your double-minded minds!