Answers to your objections on the KJV by Bob Harris
Now I'm now going to embark on answering every objection to the
inerrancy and superiority of the King James Bible.
The reason for this is two-fold.
First, to answer the raft of questions used by critics of the King
James Bible to attack and destroy the faith of anyone who really
BELIEVES that the Bible is infallible. The style is such that its
arguments can be understood and advanced by one who has NOT had the
benefit (or curse) of a Bible college education.
Second, some time ago a leader of a large fundamental movement made
the statement, "What really fires me is...these guys with a High School
education debating textual criticism." For years those faithful folk
who have not been to college have been bullied around for their lack of
formal education by an arm load of D.D.'s who seek to keep them "in the
dark." Many of these people have done more serious study of the Bible
issue in the privacy of their homes than the honorarily doctored
critics have in college classrooms. Yet the common man is often
intimidated by the "trick" questions asked by his "educated" foe. The
critic feels invincible in his armor of education.
So please study these questions and their answers carefully. They
are written so that the ordinary Christian will be properly equipped to
defend him or herself from the fiery darts of their pompous foes. In
fact, they may even punch a few holes in their armor.
Rev. Bob Harris
QUESTION 1: Shouldn't we be loyal to the "original autographs" and
not a mere translation?
ANSWER: We should put as much value on the "originals" as God does.
EXPLANATION: It is impossible to be true to the originals because
the originals have long been lost. This well established fact should be
enough to make the sincere student of Scripture realize that an
affirmative answer to the question is an impossibility.
But it does not explain the above answer. Just how much value does
God put on the originals?
To get the answer we must explore seveal chapters in the book of
Jeremiah beginning with the famous passage in chapter 36 concerning the
roll that Jeremiah had written.
In verse 21 the roll is brought before King Jehoiakim and read by
his servant Jehudi.
According to verse 23 Jehudi read three or four leaves and King
Jehoiakim cut it up with a penknife and cast it into the fire on the
hearth until it was destroyed.
Thus ends ORIGINAL #1!
Then the Lord moved Jeremiah to rewrite the roll adding some words
to it. (Jeremiah 36:32)
Thus ORIGINAL #2 is born.
We are shown the text of this second original in Jeremiah 45- 51
where it reproduced for our benefit.
Jeremiah told Seraiah to read this roll when he came into Babylon
(Jeremiah 51:59-61). Then Jeremiah instructed Seraiah, after he
finished reading the roll, to bind a stone to it and cast it into the
Euphrates river (Jeremiah 51:63)!
Thus ends ORIGINAL #2!
But wait! We have a copy of the text of the roll in chapters 45-51.
Where did it come from? It came from a copy of original #2 which we can
only call ORIGINAL #3!
So there are two very big problems for those who overemphasize the
"originals."
(1) Every Bible ever printed with a copy of Jeremiah in it has a
text in chapters 45-51 which is translated from a copy of the "second"
original, or ORIGINAL #3.
(2) Secondly, NO ONE can overlook the fact that God didn't have the
least bit of interest in preserving the "original" once it had been
copied and its message delivered. So WHY should we put more of an
emphasis on the originals than God does? An emphasis which is plainly
unscriptural.
Thus, since we have the text of the "originals" preserved in the
King James Bible we have no need of the originals, even if they were
available.
QUESTION 2: Isn't "Easter" in Acts 12:4 a mistranslation of the word
pascha and shouldn't it be translated as "passover"?
ANSWER: No, pascha is properly translated "Easter" in Acts 12:4 as
the following explanation will show.
EXPLANATION: The Greek word which is translated "Easter" in Acts
12:4 is the word pascha. This word appears twenty-nine times in the New
Testament. Twenty-eight of those times the word is rendered "passover"
in reference to the night when the Lord passed over Egypt and killed
all the firstborn of Egypt (Exodus 12:12), thus setting Israel free
from four hundred years of bondage.
The many opponents to the concept of having a perfect Bible have
made much of this translation of pascha.
Coming to the word "Easter" in God's Authorized Bible, they seize
upon it imagining that they have found proof that the Bible is not
perfect. Fortunately for lovers of the word of God, they are wrong.
Easter, as we know it, comes from the ancient pagan festival of
Astarte. Also known as Ishtar (pronounced "Easter"). This festival has
always been held late in the month of April. It was, in its original
form, a celebration of the earth "regenerating" itself after the winter
season. The festival involved a celebration of reproduction. For this
reason the common symbols of Easter festivities were the rabbit (the
same symbol as "Playboy" magazine), and the egg. Both are known for the
reproductive abilities. At the center of attention was Astarte, the
female deity. She is known in the Bible as the "queen of heaven"
(Jeremiah 7:18; 44:17-25). He is the mother of Tammuz (Ezekiel 8:14)
who was also her husband! These perverted rituals would take place at
sunrise on Easter morning (Ezekiel 8:13-16). From the references in
Jeremiah and Ezekiel, we can see that the true Easter has never had any
association with Jesus Christ. Problem: Even though the Jewish passover
was held in mid April (the fourteenth) and the pagan festival Easter
was held later the same month, how do we know that Herod was referring
to Easter in Acts 12:4 and not the Jewish passover? If he was referring
to the passover, the translation of pascha as "Easter" is incorrect. If
he was indeed referring to the pagan holyday (holiday) Easter, then the
King James Bible (1611) must truly be the very word and words of God
for it is the only Bible in print today which has the correct reading.
17 And ye shall observe the feast of unleavened bread; for in this
selfsame day have I brought your armies out of the land of Egypt:
therefore shall ye observe this day in your generations by an ordinance
for ever.
18 In the first month, on the fourteenth day of the month at even,
ye shall eat unleavened bread, until the one and twentieth day of the
month at even."
Here in Exodus 12:13 we see how the passover got its name. The LORD
said that He would "pass over" all of the houses which had the blood of
the lamb marking the door.
After the passover (Exodus 12:13,14), we find that seven days shall
be fulfilled in which the Jews were to eat unleavened bread. These are
the days of unleavened bread!
In verse 18 we see that dates for the observance were April 14th
through the 21st.
This religious observance is stated more clearly in Numbers
28:16-18: "And in the fourteenth day of the first month is the passover
of the LORD.
17 And in the fifteenth day of this month is the feast: seven days
shall unleavened bread be eaten.
18 In the first day shall be an holy convocation; ye shall do no
manner of servile work therein."
In verse 16 we see that the passover is only considered to be the
14th of the month. On the next morning, the 15th begins the "days of
unleavened bread."
Deuteronomy 16:1-8: "Observe the month of Abib (April), and keep the
passover unto the LORD thy God: for in the month of Abib the LORD thy
God brought thee forth out of Egypt by night.
2 Thou shalt therefore sacrifice the passover unto the LORD thy God,
of the flock and the herd, in the place which the LORD shall choose to
place his name there.
3 Thou shalt eat no leavened bread with it; seven days shalt thou
eat unleavened bread therewith, even the bread of affliction: for thou
camest forth out of the land of Egypt in haste: that thou mayest
remember the day when thou camest forth out of the land of Egypt all
the days of thy life.
4 And there shall be no leavened bread seen with thee in all thy
coast seven days; neither shall there any thing of the flesh, which
thou sacrificedst the first day at even, remain all night until the
morning.
5 Thou mayest not sacrifice the passover within any of thy gates,
which the LORD thy God giveth thee:
6 But at the place which the LORD thy God shall choose to place his
name in, there thou shalt sacrifice the passover at even, at the going
down of the sun, at the season that thou camest forth out of Egypt.
7 And thou shalt roast and eat it in the place which the LORD thy
God shall choose: and thou shalt turn in the morning, and go unto thy
tents.
8 Six days thou shalt eat unleavened bread: and on the oeventh day
shall be a solemn assembly to the LORD thy God: thou shalt do no work
therein."
Here in Deuteronomy we see again that the passover is sacrificed on
the first night (Deuteronomy 16:1). It is worth noting that the
passover was to be celebrated in the evening (vs. 6) not at sunrise
(Ezekiel 8:13-16).
In II Chronicles 8:13 we see that the feast of unleavened bread was
one of the three Jewish feasts to be kept during the year. II
Chronicles 8:13: "Even after a certain rate every day, offering
according to the commandment of Moses, on the sabbaths, and on the new
moons, and on the solemn feasts, three times in the year, even in the
feast of unleavened bread, and in the feast of weeks, and in the feast
of tabernacles."
Whenever the passover was kept, it always preceded the feast of
unleavened bread. In II Chronicles 30 some Jews who were unable to keep
the passover in the first month were allowed to keep it in the second.
But the dates remained the same.
II Chronicles 30:15,21: "Then they killed the passover on the
fourteenth day of the second month: and the priests and the Levites
were ashamed, and sanctified themselves, and brought in the burnt
offerings into the house of the LORD. And the children of Israel that
were present at Jerusalem kept the feast of unleavened bread seven days
with great gladness: and the Levites and the priests praised the LORD
day by day, singing with loud instruments unto the LORD."
Ezra 6:19,22: "And the children of the captivity kept the passover
upon the fourteenth day of the first month. And kept the feast of
unleavened bread seven days with joy: for the LORD had made them
joyful, and turned the heart of the king of Assyria unto them, to
strengthen their hands in the work of the house of God, the God of
Israel."
We see then, from studying what the BIBLE has to say concerning the
subject that the order of events went as follows:
(1) On the 14th of April the lamb was killed. This is the passover.
No event following the 14th is ever referred to as the passover.
(2) On the morning of the 15th begins the days of unleavened bread,
also known as the feast of unleavened bread.
It must also be noted that whenever the passover is mentioned in the
New Testament, the reference is always to the meal, to be eaten on the
night of April 14th not the entire week. The days of unleavened bread
are NEVER referred to as the passover. (It must be remembered that the
angel of the Lord passed over Egypt one night, not seven nights in a
row.)
Now let us look at Acts 12:3,4: "And because he saw it pleased the
Jews, he proceeded further to take Peter also. (Then were the days of
unleavened bread.) And when he had apprehended him, he put him in
prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him;
intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Verse 3 shows that Peter was arrested during the days of unleavened
bread (April 15-21). The Bible says: "Then were the days of unleavened
bread." The passover (April 14th) had already come and gone. Herod
could not possibly have been referring to the passover in his statement
concerning Easter. The next passover was a year away! But the pagan
holiday of Easter was just a few days away. Remember! Herod was a pagan
Roman who worshipped the "queen of heaven." He was NOT a Jew. He had no
reason to keep the Jewish passover. Some might argue that he wanted to
wait until after the passover for fear of upsetting the Jews. There are
two grievous faults in this line of thinking.
First, Peter was no longer considered a Jew. He had repudiated
Judaism. The Jews would have no reason to be upset by Herod's actions.
Second, he could not have been waiting until after the passover
because he thought the Jews would not kill a man during a religious
holiday. They had killed Jesus during passover (Matthew 26:17-19,47).
They were also excited about Herod's murder of James. Anyone knows that
a mob possesses the courage to do violent acts during religious
festivities, not after.
In further considering Herod's position as a Roman, we must remember
that the Herods were well known for celebrating (Matthew 14:6-11). In
fact, in Matthew chapter 14 we see that a Herod was even willing to
kill a man of God during one of his celebrations.
It is elementary to see that Herod, in Acts 12, had arrested Peter
during the days of unleavened bread, after the passover. The days of
unleavened bread would end on the 21st of April. Shortly after that
would come Herod's celebration of pagan Easter. Herod had not killed
Peter during the days of unleavened bread simply because he wanted to
wait until Easter. Since it is plain that both the Jews (Matthew
26:17-47) and the Romans (Matthew 14:6-11) would kill during a
religious celebration, Herod's opinion seemed that he was not going to
let the Jews "have all the fun." He would wait until his own pagan
festival and see to it that Peter died in the excitement.
Thus we see that it was God's providence which had the Spirit-
filled translators of our Bible (King James) to CORRECTLY translate
pascha as "Easter." It most certainly did not refer to the Jewish
passover. In fact, to change it to "passover" would confuse the reader
and make the truth of the situation unclear.
QUESTION 3: I have been told that King James was a homosexual. Is
this true?
ANSWER: No.
EXPLANATION: King James I of England, who authorized the translation
of the now famous King James Bible, was considered by many to be one of
the greatest, if not the greatest, monarchs that England has ever seen.
Through his wisdom and determination he united the warring tribes of
Scotland into a unified nation, and then joined England and Scotland to
form the foundation for what is now known as the British Empire.
At a time when only the churches of England possessed the Bible in
English, King James' desire was that the common people should have the
Bible in their native tongue. Thus, in 1603, King James called 54 of
history's most learned men together to accomplish this great task. At a
time when the leaders of the world wished to keep their subjects in
spiritual ignorance, King James offered his subjects the greatest gift
that he could give them. Their own copy of the word of God in English.
James, who was fluent in Latin, Greek, and French, and schooled in
Italian and Spanish, even wrote a tract entitled "Counterblast to
Tobacco," which was written to help thwart the use of tobacco in
England.
Such a man was sure to have enemies. One such man, Anthony Weldon,
had to be excluded from the court. Weldon swore vengeance. It was not
until 1650, twenty-five years after the death of James, that Weldon saw
his chance. He wrote a paper calling James a homosexual. Obviously,
James, being dead, was in no condition to defend himself.
The report was largely ignored since there were still enough people
alive who knew it wasn't true. In fact, it lay dormant for years, until
recently when it was picked up by Christians who hoped that vilifying
King James would tarnish the Bible that bears his name so that
Christians would turn away from God's book to a more "modern"
translation.
It seems, though, that Weldon's false account is being once again
largely ignored by the majority of Christianity with the exception of
those with an ulterior motive, such as its author had.
It might also be mentioned here that the Roman Catholic Church was
so desperate to keep the true Bible out of the hands of the English
people that it attempted to kill King James and all of Parliament in
1605.
In 1605 a Roman Catholic by the name of Guy Fawkes, under the
direction of a Jesuit priest by the name of Henry Garnet, was found in
the basement of Parliament with thirty-six barrels of gunpowder which
he was to use to blow up King James and the entire Parliament. After
killing the king, they planned on imprisoning his children,
reestablishing England as a state loyal to the Pope and kill all who
resisted. Needless to say, the perfect English Bible would have been
one of the plot's victims. Fawkes and Garnet and eight other
conspirators were caught and hanged.
It seems that those who work so hard to discredit the character of
King James join an unholy lot.
QUESTION 4: Aren't there archaic words in the Bible, and don't we
need a modern translation to eliminate them?
ANSWER: Yes and No. Yes there are archaic words in the Bible but No,
we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.
EXPLANATION: That there are archaic words in the Bible is very true.
An archaic word is a word which is no longer used in every day speech
and has been replaced by another. A good example of an archaic word is
found in I Corinthians 10:25.
"Whatsoever is sold in the shambles, that eat, asking no question
for conscience sake."
The word "shambles" is archaic. It has been replaced in common
speech with the word "market place." Indeed we can be certain that
"shambles" was a much more accurate description of the ancient market
place (and many around the world today). It has none the less passed
from common use.
Well then, shouldn't we publish a new translation which removes
"shambles" and inserts the more common "market place"? No, what we
should do is turn to the Bible, our final authority in all matters of
faith and practice and see what the Bible practice is concerning
archaic words. For surely we believers in a perfect Bible will want to
follow the Bible's practice concerning archaic words.
In searching the Scripture we find the Bible practice for handling
archaic words in I Samuel chapter 9:1-11. "Now there was a man of
Benjamin, whose name was Kish, the son of Zeror, the son of Bechorath,
the son of Aphiah, a Benjamite, a mighty man of valour.
2 And he had a son, whose name was Saul, a choice young man, and a
goodly: and there was not among the children of Israel a goodlier
person than he: from his shoulders and upward he was higher than any of
the people.
3 And the asses of Kish Saul's father were lost. And Kish said to
Saul his son, Take now one of the servants with thee, and arise, go
seek the asses.
4 And he passed through mount Ephraim, and passed through the land
of Shalisha, but they found them not: then they passed through the land
of Shalim, and there they were not: and he passed through the land of
the Benjamites, but they found them not.
5 And when they were come to the land of Zuph, Saul said to his
servant that was with him, Come, and let us return; lest my father
leave caring for the asses, and take thought for us.
6 And he said unto him, Behold now, there is in this city a man of
God, and he is an honourable man; all that he saith cometh surely to
pass: now let us go thither; peradventure he can shew us our way that
we should go.
7 Then said Saul to his servant, But, behold, if we go, what shall
we bring the man? for the bread is spent in our vessels, and there is
not a present to bring to the man of God: what have we?
8 And the servant answered Saul again, and said, Behold, I have here
at hand the fourth part of a shekel of silver: that will I give to the
man of God, to tell us our way.
9 (Beforetime in Israel, when a man went to inquire of God, thus he
spake, Come, and let us go to the seer: for he that is now called a
Prophet was beforetime called a Seer.)
10 Then said Saul to his servant, Well said; come let us go. So they
went unto the city where the man of God was.
11 And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young
maidens going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"
Here, in the first eleven verses of I Samuel 9, we are not only
confronted with an archaic word, but with the Bible practice for
handling it.
We find Saul and one of his father's servants searching for the
asses that had run off (I Samuel 9:1-5). They decide to go to see
Samuel the seer and enlist his help in finding the asses (verses 6-8).
In verse 11 we are going to run into an a chaic word. But, before we
do, God puts a parenthesis in the narrative (verse 9) to tell us about
it. Notice that verse 9 states that "he that is now called a Prophet
was beforetime called a Seer." Thus we see that, between the time that
this event took place and the time that the incident was divinely
recorded the word "Seer" had passed from common use to be replaced with
"Prophet." "Seer" was now archaic.
BUT, look carefully at verse 11 where the archaic word appeared.
"And as they went up the hill to the city, they found young maidens
going out to draw water, and said unto them, Is the seer here?"
Please note that the verse retains the outdated word "seer." It does
not say, "Is the prophet here?"
Thus we see that God Himself through the divine inspiration of the
Holy Spirit used verse 9 to explain the upcoming archaic word but did
not change the holy text!
So we see that, the Bible practice for handling situations such as
we find in I Corinthians 10:25 when preaching is to tell the
congregation something to the effect that "What beforetime was called
`shambles' is now called `market place'." But we should leave the
archaic word in the text. This is what God did! Surely we sinners are
not going to come up with a better method for handling archaic words
than God has.
So, the answer to the question is, "Yes, there are archaic words in
the Bible but No we do not need a modern translation to eliminate them.
God didn't change His Book, He certainly does not want us doing it.