Barry the Bible Corrector's
BARRY THE BIBLE CORRECTOR'S
64 GARDEN OF EDEN QUESTIONS ANSWERED
By Herb Evans
INTRODUCTION
Miguel Jurna posted these questions from Barry Davis the Bible Corrector's E-mail List () to the BBFI Open List, and requested that someone answer them. We could not resist the challenge. We answered most of the questions off the cuff with the exception of the manuscript study questions and the Greek study questions and the historical dates. Most of Barry's questions are loaded and opinionated, which resulted in some opinionated answers. We knew that Barry was setting a trap with many of the questions, but approached them one by one without peeking at the ones that followed. To our surprise, we were consistent throughout, having to make only minor changes to our rough draft. Later, we added the scripture verses to each answer. Also, we implemented a few suggestions and comments from the brethren on IFB and the King James Lists (). Shortly after our posting of these answers, we received favorable comments and requests to print the answers in booklet form. Well, with a bit more education on our word processing program and our laser printer, we have done just that. Since we do not believe in copyrighting our material, this booklet claims no copyright rights, so anyone may duplicate it to further the cause of the King James Bible. Our motto is "Freely received, freely given." We would hope that the brethren would be honorable and not steal our name from the booklet's contents. -- Herb Evans
1. Which KJV is inspired, since it was revised four times, the last being in 1769?
Answer: It was never revised; it was edited. The New King James is a real revision and is corrupt. An edition is not a revision. The majority of the changes were spelling and punctuation and grammatical changes due to the English that was being refined and standardized. We will settle on the 1769 as being the inspired word of God in English. It’s what I use. But then, what is your definition of inspiration? Will you reason from the scriptures or from your contemporary extra-scriptural sources and man-made theology? -- Evans
The wicked have laid a snare for me: yet I erred not from thy precepts. -- Ps. 119:110
. . . reasoned with them OUT OF THE SCRIPTURES . . .-- Acts 17:2
2. What Bible would these KJV Advocates recommend, since before 1611 there was no Bible (according to them)?
Answer: I would recommend the Old Latin Bible of the Waldensians and also any English Bible except the Rheims prior to 1611 over anything else that has come along since with the understanding that they were not intentional corruptions but did have some minor flaws that needed the refinement process. Still, the question is not what I would recommend for those of that era; it is what they would recommend for themselves without you or me dictating to them after the fact. We cannot speak for them and neither can they speak for us. Printed Bibles did not precede the Gutenberg (1450-56) in Germany. England's first printing press was in 1477. The English people, except for the Geneva Bible, did not possess very many bibles prior to 1611. The English language, the English Bible, and the medium for the Bible were all being refined at the very same time within less than 76 years, 1535 to 1611. -- Evans
The words of the LORD are pure words; as silver tried in a furnace of EARTH, PURIFIED SEVEN TIMES. -- Ps. 12:6
3. Why do KJV only advocates reject the apocrypha, since the original 1611 version contained the apocrypha?
Answer: The very word, “Apocrypha,” as defined in English, should tell you that being contained in the original Bible does not mean being recognized as Scripture, any more than the maps and preface and concordance in your present Bible are recognized as scripture. The Apocrypha was placed - not in the O.T. nor in the N.T. - but in between, clearly designating that it was not scripture. Still, is this not the pot calling the kettle black in that your favorite Alexandrian source texts contained the Apocrypha? -- Evans
Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures . . .-- Matt. 22:29
4. If God always gives the world his word in one language (as KJV advocates say of English), then the KJV is certainly not that language, for God chose Koine GREEK not ENGLISH to reveal his New Covenant!
Answer: What are your verse and chapter for that dogmatic statement? Are you asking us or pontificating to us? If what you are suggesting is true, you should be preaching the Koine Greek. Did the Koine Greek Bible result in your salvation, if you are saved? If God chose Hebrew to reveal His covenants, how did Paul translate O.T. passages into Greek without a loss of inspiration and purity? Who do you know that advocates that God gave His word in only one language? -- Evans
. . . ALL scripture . . . IS PROFITABLE . . . -- 2 Tim 3:16
5. If God gave us the KJV as an inspired translation, why wouldGod not repeat the process again in modern language in each language?
Answer: Why would anyone want to add or detract from an inspired translation? If God already gave us an inspired translation in English, why would He want to give us another? If He gave us the inspiredHebrew and as you say Koine Greek, why didn't He give us other inspired translations in other Greek dialects and Modern Hebrew? Did God author the differences in the Greek texts? Where did the differences come from? God? -- Evans
For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven . . .-- Ps. 119:89
6. If God supervised the translation process so that the KJV is 100% error free, why did God not extend this supervision to the printers?
Answer: Probably because He did not extend His supervision to the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts that we have. None of them are without errors and none are even complete. We can't expect more of the KJB Bible printers than we can of the Hebrew and Greek printers, now can we? Don't you make any distinctions between textual errors and typographical errors? In the English? In the Greek also? -- Evans
. . . there shall fall unto the earth NOTHING of the WORD of the LORD . . .-- 2 Kings 10:10
. . . the word of the LORD was precious in those days . . . And Samuel grew and the LORD was with him, and did let none of his words fall to the ground. -- 1 Sam 3:1,19
7. Why did the KJV translators use marginal note showing alternate translation possibilities? If the English of the KJV is inspired of God, there would be no alternates!
Answer: Do you really believe their notes were inspired? Which ones? The King James translators did not realize the extent of their work, as demonstrated by their introduction. They were unusually honest and modest, trying to show what choices were available. But in every language, dictionaries give multiple meanings to a word. Do you think the translators were calling into questiontheir own work as you are? Do not preachers give the same explanations in the pulpit, without changing the word of God? -- Evans
Search the scriptures . . .-- John 5:39
8. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know it?
Answer: They did not know it, because they were not inspired, the very same reason that Paul, Moses, Matthew, and Mark did not know it. You see, even the original writers were not inspired. Only the scriptures are said to be inspired, and it is God that inspires His word - not men! Of course, come to think of it, the devil does inspire Bible Correctors. – Evans
. . . ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION . . .-- 2 Tim. 3:16
9. Why were the marginal notes and alternate readings removed from modern editions of the KJV, along with the Apocrypha, the opening Dedication to James I, and a lengthy introduction from the “Translator to the Reader?”
Answer: Do you really believe that these portions were inspired? If not, perhaps, that is the reason. Then again, what American is interested in James of Scotland? Who reads those things anyway? Was it removed to save money on printing? Paper? To have competitive pricing? What do you think? In your Bible Correcting paranoia, do you suppose an ulterior motive? -- Evans
. . . MY words shall not pass away . . .-- Matt. 24:35
. . . MY words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of THY SEED’s SEED, SAITH THE lord, FROM HENCEFORTH AND FOR EVER. -- Isa. 59:21
10. When there is a difference between the KJV English and the TR Greek, why do you believe that the Greek was wrong and the KJV English is correct?
Answer: Which Greek and which TR? Which difference? Whose interpretation of the Greek? The Greek language is very different from English. Do you suppose that has something to do with it? The KJB does correct many corrupt Greek texts. Still, what makes you think that the Greek is always correct? Does one of them always have to be wrong? Could there be some reconciling factors that folks do not know about? Is it possible that both could be saying the same thing then and now? Should we exercise the logic of faith based on scriptural principles or should we exercise non-scriptural logic based upon the skepticism of men? -- Evans
. . . THROUGHLY FURNISHED unto ALL good works . . . -- 2 Tim 3:17
11. If the KJV-only supporters believe fully in the word-for-word inspiration of the KJV, why would italics be necessary?
Answer: Italics were included, not because they were "necessary," but because the translators were trying to be honest by showing that the underlying word was neither there but implied in English (the way we speak), NOR was the word found in Greek/Hebrew but was found in another language or source.Without the italicized words, the sentences from Greek would be mere fragments in English. Jesus would be left out of Luke 19:1 and the sentence would be without a subject. There is no such thing as a word for word translation from any language to some other language. Why do quoted words in italics in the English O.T. wind up without italics in the English N.T.? For example, the ox treading out the "CORN?" -- Evans
And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail . . . -- Luke 16:17
12. In defending the KJV's use of archaic language, do you really think it is a good thing that a person must use an old English dictionary just to understand the Bible in casual reading?
Answer: Most of the so called archaic language is not really archaic, as shown by Laurence Vance in his book, where he demonstrates many of those words being used in modern publications. He also demonstrates how much of the so called archaic language is necessary to convey the Hebrew and Greek idioms and tenses. We might add that the HOLY scriptures are not to be read "casually." It is the preacher’s job to be apt to teach and give the sense of agiven passage. It is not a Christian’s job to dumb down God's word. -- Evans
So they read in the book of the law of God distinctly, and gave the SENSE, and caused them to understand the reading. -- Neh. 8:8
13. Why do KJV only advocates feel that all modern translations are wrong for copyrighting the work of each translation when they copyright the materials on their Webster, tracts and books they use to promote the KJV? Do they not realize that after 100 years all books pass into public domain and that all copyrighted Bibles today will soon be public domain just like the KJV? If "God's truth should not be copyrighted" then why do they copy write [sic] their defenses of God's ultimate truth, the Bible?
Answer: Good question, but it does not apply to me. I just recently and publicly came out against Christians copyrighting their endeavors. Perhaps, not for your reason, but I had plenty of other reasons. My motto is freely received, freely given. So, I do find fault with the modern copyrighted Bible practice without being guilty of your implied double standard. I suspect filthy lucre in all this modern translation, copyright business as well as the love of money being the root of that evil. -- Evans
. . . freely ye have received, freely give . . . -- Matt. 10:8
. . . when ye received the word of God which ye heard from us received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God . . . -- 1 Thess. 2:13
14. Is it not ridiculous to suggest that when the TR disagrees with the KJV that Greek TR has errors, but the KJV doesn't? Is this not the ultimate example of "translation worship?” (Reject the original in favour of the translation)
Answer: Again, which TR and which GREEK? I think it would be equally ridiculous to worship a language such as Hebrew and Greek, especially if a man could not fluently read, speak, and understand it. And especially, if one did not know which Greek and Hebrew to worship. Christians worship God in spirit and truth not in uncertainty and confusion. How one worships is as important as what one worships. "Trust in God" versus "trust in man" are the options. Which one do you think you have picked?
I think it would be equally ridiculous to dogmatically call the TR the original, when it is but an assumption without a verse and chapter, especially when one does not know which TR to title as the Original. Without a perfect Greek or Hebrew Text, how do you Alexandrians expect to correct something which you claim is not correct? I think that it would be equally ridiculous to say that the English KJB has errors upon the say so and interpretation of others, who parrot others, who learned their Greek rules of grammar from an infidel, third or fourth hand. -- Evans
. . . thou hast magnified thy WORD above all thy name . . . -- Ps. 138:2
15. Did you know that the Textus Receptus, from which the KJV was translated, was based on half a dozen small manuscripts, none earlier than the 10th century? “Word of God?”
Answer: But much has been corroborated by earlier manuscripts found since then, demonstrating God's unique methods of preservation. What do you mean "small" manuscripts? That has to be a classic statement? Do you subscribe to the theory that an earlier corruption is better than a later authenticity? Are you suggesting that several centuries of Christians had to wait for the real word of God to be found? Odd that over 5200 manuscripts support the readings in the KJB (mostly majority text), while less than 50 support the readings in other bibles (mostly minority text). Now, if a person believes that God superintends the preservation of His word, he is comfortable with such history. But if a person believes it takes man to decide what is preserved and what is not, I can see where he would have a problem trusting God. For you, who trust in men, Erasmus, an expert in his field, was well traveled and well versed in variant disputes from reading early church disputes as is reflected in his notes. If he chose a handful of late manuscripts, he evidently had good reason to do so. The principle of judging bibles by their fruit is the scriptural method. Which bible do you think fares the best under that sort of a scrutiny? -- Evans
. . .So shall my WORD be that goeth forth out of my mouth . . . it shall ACCOMPLISH that which I please, and it shall PROSPER . . . -- Isa 55:11
16. If the Textus Receptus is the error free text, then why are the last 6 verses of Revelation absence from the TR, yet present in the KJV? Did you know that for these verses, the Latin Vulgate was translated into English - a translation of a translation?
Answer: NO, I did not KNOW that. And be prepared for a shock, you don't KNOW that either. You have merely parroted an opinion of some scholar that believes that. While it is true that the last six verses of Codex 1r (Rev 22:16-21), which Erasmus used, were missing, your parroted theory has been disputed by HOSKIER, on the evidence of manuscript 141*. You can't seem to make up your mind whether to attack the KJB or attack the TR; can you? Who says the TR is an error free Text? Can you prove it? In his 4th translation of his Greek New Testament (1527), Erasmus supposedly corrected much of this text which was thought to be a translation based on a comparison with the Compluensian Polyglot Bible. Other manuscripts, 296, 2049, and the margin of 2067 may also be included in this evidence. The Book of life versus the tree of life dispute may also be supported by the Old Boharic version, the writings of Ambrose (397 AD) Bachiarius (late 4th century), Primasius (552 AD), and Haymo (9th century). There is internal evidence also, for instance, the way that "David" is spelled in Erasmus' translation was the same as Koine Greek, something Erasmus would not have done if he were translating from the Latin. The spelling of "David" in the critical text is in classical Greek and differs. So much for the rest of the story! – Evans