1. Use of Psalms 12:7 does not work related to preservation in the CSB or NLT because in those bibles it relates to the poor alone. Is the author stating the CSB and NLT are in error and warning against using these bibles?
2. “He originally inspired it, in Hebrew and Greek.” Daniel was probably written in Aramaic.
3. “The King James Version was not the first English translation” Correct, the KJV is a revision of the Geneva and Bishops.
4. Shocking to see an entire article on the KJV and not even mention the Bishop’s Bible from which it was copied from.
5. “First, the translators did not have access to the best and earliest manuscripts” – Hold on, article starts with Psalms 12:7 and they moves to “earliest” which were not available to the Church for 1500 years. Need to be a bit more consistent.
6. “back as close as possible to the original, inspired, inerrant writings” – If preserved, why does age matter? God preserved till 300 AD and then stopped?
7. “but the original manuscript actually says “only begotten God,” – Because of Codex B (Vaticanus)? But Codex A (Alexandrinus), Syriac, Majority, etc., support “Son.” So we have options for earliest manuscripts, but majority is “Son” so preservation by God would dictate that being correct. I do find it interesting the author states as a fact what the original manuscript says.
8. “Because the KJV is from late manuscripts that were copied more often” -- Well, Bart Ehrman sort of dispel this Bibliology. The Later copies were more formal than earlier manuscripts and less likely to have copy errors.
9. “That verse is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and so wasn’t in the original, inspired Gospel of John.” – See point 7.
10. For John 5:4 - It is found in codices A, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, D, Q, P and the third corrector of C. The Greek minuscules overwhelming support the verse and is contained in 28, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, and 2148. So, sort of amazed the Author is so sure it is not original.
11. “Thus 1 John 5:7-8” – I am going to pass on this one.
12. “KJV translators didn’t know how to translate a word, like “beulah,” – Really? It is translated marry (8x), husband (3x), dominion (2x), wife (1x), married wife (1x), Beulah (1x). I think we are bordering on a bit of dishonesty.
13. Romans 9:5? So the NASB is wrong? If so, please call out that version also.
14. The KJV used today is the 1769, which has plenty of revision from the 1611. Stating King James had power over the 1769 is somewhat ludicrous.
Over all, for a Pastor with a Phd, I think a better job could have been done in this article.
1. It doesn't matter what translations say. It matters what the original Hebrew says.
2. Six chapters of Daniel are in Aramaic. Obviously it was inspired too. This kind of tedious fact is beside the point and suggests you're not being serious.
3. So? Why make a point that I made?
4. Be serious.
5. This makes no sense. “First, the translators did not have access to the best and earliest manuscripts”. God preserved His Word in the original languages. Just because the early 17th century translators didn't have access to them doesn't change that fact. You're trying to make a point but you're not logical.
6. The original was preserved, not every later copy. You simply do not understand what I'm saying. Perhaps intentionally.
7. The original manuscript of John 1:18 actually says “only begotten God,” as attested by the earliest manuscripts.
8. Bart Ehrman does no such thing and you're incorrectly using the term "Bibliology", revealing that you don't understand it.
It's totally absurd to claim "later copies were . . . less likely to have copy errors." They were, in fact, more likely to carry on the earlier copyist errors. Your claim is total nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
9. John 5:4 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and so wasn’t in the original, inspired Gospel of John. See the last sentence of point 8.
10. See the last sentence of point 8.
11. See the last sentence of point 8.
12. KJV translators didn’t know how to translate a word, like “beulah”. "The name Beulah occurs only once in the Bible. The prophet Isaiah mentions it in a small list of nicknames for Jerusalem and Zion (Isaiah 62:4)." (https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Beulah.html) So, your claim cannot be true. You've apparently lied about instances of "Beulah" in order to make the kjv look like it had translated it correctly in other places.
13. Just because other versions also have errors is not an excuse to ignore the kjv's errors. You'd know that if you were arguing in good faith.
14. You're trying to obfuscate the fact that King James determined the translation of some terms.
You're not arguing in good faith but like a typical kjv-onlyist cultists twisting everything to preserve your early 17th century Anglican translation. You're ignorant and lack integrity. You are not "open to reason" and so lack the "wisdom that is from above" (James 3:17.)
Use this Christmas day to examine yourself as to why you have an idolatrous attachment to an early 17th century Anglican translation and whether your willingness to be dishonest and disingenuous in your defense of your idol and your general arrogance that makes you think you can argue about things you really know little about suggests that you have not truly been humbled by the grace of God because you've not yet been truly converted. Examine yourself as to whether you're really just a religious hypocrite and not a true believer in the gospel at all. "Examine yourself as to whether you're really in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5.)
Let’s look at this article analytically.
1. Use of Psalms 12:7 does not work related to preservation in the CSB or NLT because in those bibles it relates to the poor alone. Is the author stating the CSB and NLT are in error and warning against using these bibles?
2. “He originally inspired it, in Hebrew and Greek.” Daniel was probably written in Aramaic.
3. “The King James Version was not the first English translation” Correct, the KJV is a revision of the Geneva and Bishops.
4. Shocking to see an entire article on the KJV and not even mention the Bishop’s Bible from which it was copied from.
5. “First, the translators did not have access to the best and earliest manuscripts” – Hold on, article starts with Psalms 12:7 and they moves to “earliest” which were not available to the Church for 1500 years. Need to be a bit more consistent.
6. “back as close as possible to the original, inspired, inerrant writings” – If preserved, why does age matter? God preserved till 300 AD and then stopped?
7. “but the original manuscript actually says “only begotten God,” – Because of Codex B (Vaticanus)? But Codex A (Alexandrinus), Syriac, Majority, etc., support “Son.” So we have options for earliest manuscripts, but majority is “Son” so preservation by God would dictate that being correct. I do find it interesting the author states as a fact what the original manuscript says.
8. “Because the KJV is from late manuscripts that were copied more often” -- Well, Bart Ehrman sort of dispel this Bibliology. The Later copies were more formal than earlier manuscripts and less likely to have copy errors.
9. “That verse is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and so wasn’t in the original, inspired Gospel of John.” – See point 7.
10. For John 5:4 - It is found in codices A, E, F, G, H, I, K, L, D, Q, P and the third corrector of C. The Greek minuscules overwhelming support the verse and is contained in 28, 565, 700, 892, 1009, 1010, 1071, 1195, 1216, 1230, 1241, 1242, 1253, 1344, 1365, 1546, 1646, and 2148. So, sort of amazed the Author is so sure it is not original.
11. “Thus 1 John 5:7-8” – I am going to pass on this one.
12. “KJV translators didn’t know how to translate a word, like “beulah,” – Really? It is translated marry (8x), husband (3x), dominion (2x), wife (1x), married wife (1x), Beulah (1x). I think we are bordering on a bit of dishonesty.
13. Romans 9:5? So the NASB is wrong? If so, please call out that version also.
14. The KJV used today is the 1769, which has plenty of revision from the 1611. Stating King James had power over the 1769 is somewhat ludicrous.
Over all, for a Pastor with a Phd, I think a better job could have been done in this article.
1. It doesn't matter what translations say. It matters what the original Hebrew says.
2. Six chapters of Daniel are in Aramaic. Obviously it was inspired too. This kind of tedious fact is beside the point and suggests you're not being serious.
3. So? Why make a point that I made?
4. Be serious.
5. This makes no sense. “First, the translators did not have access to the best and earliest manuscripts”. God preserved His Word in the original languages. Just because the early 17th century translators didn't have access to them doesn't change that fact. You're trying to make a point but you're not logical.
6. The original was preserved, not every later copy. You simply do not understand what I'm saying. Perhaps intentionally.
7. The original manuscript of John 1:18 actually says “only begotten God,” as attested by the earliest manuscripts.
8. Bart Ehrman does no such thing and you're incorrectly using the term "Bibliology", revealing that you don't understand it.
It's totally absurd to claim "later copies were . . . less likely to have copy errors." They were, in fact, more likely to carry on the earlier copyist errors. Your claim is total nonsense. You have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
9. John 5:4 is not in the earliest Greek manuscripts and so wasn’t in the original, inspired Gospel of John. See the last sentence of point 8.
10. See the last sentence of point 8.
11. See the last sentence of point 8.
12. KJV translators didn’t know how to translate a word, like “beulah”. "The name Beulah occurs only once in the Bible. The prophet Isaiah mentions it in a small list of nicknames for Jerusalem and Zion (Isaiah 62:4)." (https://www.abarim-publications.com/Meaning/Beulah.html) So, your claim cannot be true. You've apparently lied about instances of "Beulah" in order to make the kjv look like it had translated it correctly in other places.
13. Just because other versions also have errors is not an excuse to ignore the kjv's errors. You'd know that if you were arguing in good faith.
14. You're trying to obfuscate the fact that King James determined the translation of some terms.
You're not arguing in good faith but like a typical kjv-onlyist cultists twisting everything to preserve your early 17th century Anglican translation. You're ignorant and lack integrity. You are not "open to reason" and so lack the "wisdom that is from above" (James 3:17.)
Use this Christmas day to examine yourself as to why you have an idolatrous attachment to an early 17th century Anglican translation and whether your willingness to be dishonest and disingenuous in your defense of your idol and your general arrogance that makes you think you can argue about things you really know little about suggests that you have not truly been humbled by the grace of God because you've not yet been truly converted. Examine yourself as to whether you're really just a religious hypocrite and not a true believer in the gospel at all. "Examine yourself as to whether you're really in the faith" (2 Cor. 13:5.)