Part 6 - Inspiration and Inerrancy

In chapter eight of his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris takes up the topic of inspiration and inerrancy. Rick asks: "Does not God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL languages have divine authority to correct any translation including the KJV? Would they claim that God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL languages has passed away or was unacceptable as THE STANDARD OF AUTHORITY?...a few (KJV-only advocates) go to the extreme by denying the authority of the Word of God in Hebrew and Greek."

It is as clear to me as the noonday sun that Mr. Norris is sitting in judgment on the of the King James Bible by upholding a "standard of authority" (that is, "the originals") when no such thing as the originals in Hebrew or Greek exist - and he knows they don't exist even while he continues to say it!

Mr. Norris asks: "Would they claim that God's Word in the original languages has passed away as the standard of authority?" Yes, Rick, we would claim this. If you can show us the originals, then we will be glad to change our minds and admit that your standard of authority has merit.

Mr. Norris' entire premise has no factual basis, yet he continually refers to "the originals" as though he were looking at them while he writes his book and compares them to the King James Bible. Then he accuses the KJV advocates of holding to a man-made doctrine that God has preserved His inerrant words, and done so in the King James Bible, while at the same time he himself clings to a mystical bible he has never seen in his entire life. The irony is overwhelming.

Nowhere in the Bible does it ever mention "the originals", nor that "ONLY the originals can be inspired". Neither does the Bible ever teach the commonly accepted idea Mr. Norris promotes that "No Translation can be the Inspired Words of God". Where did he get this idea? Certainly not from any Bible I have read. The Bible itself clearly teaches by many examples that a translation CAN BE the inspired words of God. See my article on this called: Can a Translation be Inspired?

Mr. Norris believes and quotes others who have stated "ONLY THE ORIGINAL is God-breathed." Where does this idea come from? The Lord Jesus Christ Himself tells us "the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life" - John 6:63. The Scriptures teach us that "the word of God LIVETH and ABIDETH for ever" - 1 Peter 1:23. The true and inspired words of God can be likened to water that sustains life. If the same water is removed from one vessel and placed into another, without addition or subtraction, it is the same water.

We are not claiming "double inspiration" for the King James Bible or that the KJB translators were inspired. It is God's words that are inspired. It is not a case of "once upon a time, long, long ago and far away the Scriptures WERE inspired ONLY in the originals". God did inspire certain men to speak and write His words of truth, but the words continue to be the inspired words of God. The inspiration of God's words did not cease when copies were made and the apostles and prophets died off.

Mr. Norris also says: "Because of the differences in languages, a translation cannot possibly reproduce all the exact meanings of the words in the other language. Therefore, all translations must at some points be inferior to the original although they may come very close to its meaning."

Again, Mr. Norris has no "the original" to compare anything to, but this has not stopped him from reaching his conclusions. His philosophy about translations is totally humanistic. God has no problem translating His words into another language. The Scriptures themselves show us that He has done this very thing many times. (Again, see my article, Can a Translation be Inspired?)

I and many other King James Bible believers hold the view that God Providentially guided the translators to give us His inerrant and perfect words in the English language. The translators themselves were imperfect and sinful men as we all are. They just happended to be the tools or vessels God chose to use in fulfilling His promises to preserve His inspired words.

Mr. Norris recognizes this is our view and tries to refute it. He says we King James Bible defenders "end up making an assumption that the KJV translators received infallible divine guidance in their translating which kept them from possibly making any errors in translation." Yes, Rick, I agree with you here. This is our assumption, though I prefer to call it faith in the promises of God based on substantial evidence. But you have nicely summed up what most of us believe.

Mr. Norris reveals his flawed premise when he concludes: "Making a translation the final authority makes it an authority above which there is no other, which means that God's Word in the original Hebrew and Greek would be of lesser authority than the KJV."

Does Mr. Norris need to be reminded again that he can not tell us where to find one single verse from "the original Hebrew and Greek"? He tells us his Final Authority is something that he has never seen and which no longer exists, and then accuses us of following a man-made doctrine. Rick, you are following a "made-up doctrine". THERE ARE NO ORIGINALS. Rick, will you please tell us all where we can get a copy of this original Greek and Hebrew you keep telling us about?

Mr. Norris further states: "To claim the action of the KJV translators was free from all the effects of sin and any possibility of error without any act of divine inspiration would be in effect to contradict the Scriptural doctrine of the depravity of man."

I don't know of any KJB defender who claims what Mr. Norris just said. We claim the Providential guidance of God Almighty, not an "act of divine inspiration". As for the depravity of man, no one denies this. God has always used depraved, fallen men to give us His words, even in the originals. Don't the modern version translators assume they can receive divine guidance and providential direction when they pray to God and ask Him for wisdom in their translational work? Cannot God work in this way? Why deny the possibility that God providentially guided the KJB translators and then assume it can happen for others?

In this chapter, Mr. Norris mentions one specific example of what he thinks is a typographical error still found in the KJB. He says the King James reading in Matthew 23:24 is a misprint. He says "strain AT a gnat" should be "strain OUT a gnat."

Let's take a moment to look at and discuss Matthew 23:24

"Ye blind guides, which strain AT a gnat, and swallow a camel."

There are many who criticize the King James reading of "strain at a gnat". Some tell us this is a printing error, yet I would ask how do they know this? It is a mere assumption on their part.

The word "to strain" (diulizo) is found only once in the New Testament. How to translate this word is a matter of perspective. There are at least two different ways I know of to look at the verse as it stands in the King James Bible, and both make sense.

#1. The rendering of "strain at" a gnat, implies only the effort to try to strain out the gnats that might ceremoniously defile their drink and food; it does not necessarily mean they succeeded in always getting them out. The modern versions like the NKJV, NASB, NIV, and even the older English versions of Tyndale and Geneva say "strain OUT a gnat", as though they accomplished what they intended.

In 1729 Daniel Mace made a translation of the New Testament, and in Matthew 23:24 he translated as: "strain..FOR a gnat", which carries the same meaning as that found in the Authorized Version.

There is nothing wrong with the KJB reading of "strain at a gnat." Other commentators in the past have had no problem with the way the phrase stands in the King James Bible.

John Gill - "To this practice Christ alluded here; and so very strict and careful were they in this matter, that to strain AT (caps mine) a gnat, and swallow a camel, became at length a proverb, to signify much solicitude about little things, and none about greater."

Matthew Henry - "they strained AT a gnat, and swallowed a camel. In their doctrine they strained AT gnats, warned people against every the least violation of the tradition of the elders. In their practice they strained AT gnats, heaved AT them, with a seeming dread, as if they had a great abhorrence of sin, and were afraid of it in the least instance"

These two commentators do not try to change the King James reading here, though they both do so in other parts of the Scriptures. They affirm that the Pharisees had a great outward revulsion for minor sins, yet they swallowed a camel.

How many gnats do you suppose were on that camel they swallowed?

#2 Another way to look at this verse was suggested at a Bible club I belong to. It makes a lot of sense. This brother said that since the word gnat is in the singular and not the plural, the idea is that the Pharisees would strain AT a gnat, which is among the smallest of creatures, in the sense of "at discovering a gnat" or "at finding a gnat in their drink", they would begin the process of straining.

He pointed out the following: "The KJV is speaking of the Pharisitical practice of straining wine after a gnat is found in it - hence, straining at the discovered presence of a gnat. When a gnat was found in wine, of course it was removed by hand. Insects aren't kosher, though some locusts are. What, according to Jewish law, allowed the remaining wine to be kosher was straining it, just in case any more impurities might be found in it. If you couldn't strain it, all the wine was to be thrown away. So - they strained AT the discovery of a gnat, which may or may not strain additional gnats.

I understand many KJV opponents love this "error", but in my opinion, the only error here is with their understanding of English and Jewish law.

This construction in English is very clear to me and to the editors of what is arguably the utmost authority on the English language, the Oxford English Dictionary. Jews strained when an insect was found - that is, at (the discovery of) a gnat.

Again, far from being an error in the KJV, the KJV has the best translation which fits all the facts. The King James Bible has the better translation."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 7 - Alleged Errors in the King James Bible

In this Response to Mr. Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, I would like to follow a different order of topics and address a couple of issues he brings up regarding the King James Bible. Lord willing, we will then address the supremely important doctrine of the preservation of Scripture; Where was the inerrant word of God before 1611?; and then a summation of the principal arguments and some closing thoughts.

But first - On page 103 of his book, Mr. Norris asks the question: "Is their evidence for their KJV-only view so weak that they have to tear down all other translations in order to build up the KJV?"

Later in his book Mr. Norris himself dedicates three whole chapters consisting of 60 pages to "tearing down" the King James Bible by alleging a whole series of mistranslations, errors, and assorted blunders as being "an unhappy translation", "this is not correct", "the incorrect rendering" and "a mere oversight of our KJV translators".

I think one of the main reasons many of us who are King James Bible defenders are so fervent about this whole Bible version issue is because the attack first began by those who placed their individual learning, scholarship, and opinions as the final authority of what God REALLY said, and tried to rob us of our faith in an inspired Bible.

This process began years ago in various commentaries where the author would write "the Authorized Version has an unfortunate rendering here", or "It really says...", or "the Greek really means...". They were in effect distancing us from the sure words of God and making themselves a type of intermediary between us and hearing God's voice directly through His written word. We just got tired of it and decided to believe what The Book says about itself.

Various new bible versions were not even subtle about this attack on our beloved Bible. When the Revised Standard Version came out in 1952 it contained these remarks in the Preface.

"The King James Version has GRAVE DEFECTS. By the middle of the nineteenth century, the development of Biblical studies and the discovery of many manuscripts more ancient than those upon which the King James Version was based, made it manifest that THESE DEFECTS ARE SO MANY AND SO SERIOUS as to call for revision of the English translation."

Ronald F. Youngblood, one of the NIV translators has this to say regarding the underlying Greek texts of the King James Bible. "It is now almost universally recognized that the Textus Receptus (TR) contains so many significant departures from the original manuscripts of the various New Testament books that it cannot be relied on as a basis for translation into other languages."

"It is simply to point out that in most cases the readings found in older manuscripts, particularly the Greek uncials Vaticanus and Sinaiticus of the fourth century A.D., are to be preferred to those found in later manuscripts, such as those that reflect the TR." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 111-112 .

Edwin H. Palmer, the executive secretary for the committee on Bible translation for the NIV, wrote the following. "The KJV is not, however, the best translation to use today. This is so for two reasons: (1) it adds to the word of God and (2) it has now obscure and misleading renderings of God's Word. They did their best, but all they had to work with was a handful of copies of the Greek manuscripts of the New Testament books. In a few sections they had no Greek manuscript at all! Instead, they had to rely on the Latin Vulgate's rendering of what they thought must have originally been in the Greek!

"Through the providence of God, many more Greek manuscripts had been preserved and were subsequently discovered ­ in fact, more than five thousand of them. Some of the Greek manuscripts date back to the four hundreds and three hundreds ­ even to about A.D. 200. These ancient manuscripts were more reliable and more accurate, not being corrupted by errors made during countless times of copying, such as occurred with the late manuscripts used by the KJV." The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), pp. 142-143.

Mr. Palmer, of the NIV committee, closed with these words: "Do not give them a loaf of bread, covered with an inedible, impenetrable crust, fossilized by three and a half centuries. Give them the Word of God as fresh and warm and clear as the Holy Spirit gave it to the authors of the Bible ... For any preacher or theologian who loves God's Word to allow that Word to go on being misunderstood because of the veneration of an archaic, not-understood version of four centuries ago is inexcusable, and almost unconscionable." (The NIV: The Making of a Contemporary Translation, Kenneth L. Barker (Editor), p. 156.)

So later on, when Mr. Norris addresses the textual differences that separate the King James Bible readings from most modern versions, and he tries to minimize them to the point of prevarication, he would do well to consider that not everyone on the other side of this issue is as unconcerned and conciliatory about them as he is.

Mr. Norris begins his personal critique of the King James Bible by pointing out what he considers to be various mistranslations and inconsistencies. On page 302 Mr. Norris asks: "Why did the KJV translators translate the same Hebrew word qaath as "pelican" in Leviticus 11:18, Deut. 14:17, and Psalm 102:6 but as "cormorant" at Isaiah 34:11 and Zephaniah 2:14?"

Mr. Norris and anyone else who has a minimum amount of understanding regarding the Hebrew language, should know that one Hebrew word can have an astounding array of very different meanings.

We could also ask: Why do the NASB and the NIV translate the same Hebrew word #47 ab-beer as "angels, bulls, mighty men, stouthearted, stallions, strong ones, steeds, and stubborn minded"?

The NASB has translated the same Hebrew word as "dragon, monster, sea monster, and serpent."

The NASB, NIV have translated the same Greek word as both "eagle" and "vulture."

The NIV has translated the same Hebrew word as "jackals" and "foxes".

The NKJV has translated the same Hebrew word as both "bittern" (a type of bird - Zephaniah 2:14) and as "porcupine" (Isaiah 14:23); the same word as both "caterillar" and "grasshopper", the same word as "scorpions" and "scourges", the same word as both "jackals" and "foxes", and the same word as "turquoise" and "emerald".

In fact, both the NASB and the NIV have translated the same Hebrew word yom, which usually means "day" as: "afternoon, battle, birthday, daylight, each, entire, eternity, fate, first, forever, future, holiday, later, length, live, long, now, older, once, period, perpetually, recently, reigns, ripe age, short-lived, so long, survived, time, usual, very old, when, whenever, while, yesterday, yearly, and years."!

There is a great deal of similarity between a pelican and a cormorant; both are fish eating birds with a large pouch.

Webster's dictionary 1999 - Cormorant - any of various typically dark-plummaged diving seabirds of worldwide distribution, having a long neck and a throat pouch for holding fish.

Pelican - any of several large, web-footed birds having an expandable throat pouch.

Not only does the King James Bible translate this single Hebrew word as both "pelican" and as "cormorant" but so also do Webster's 1833 translation, the 1936 Hebrew Publishing Company Jewish translation, the KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible.

Let's take a look at one of the verses Mr. Norris mentions here - Isaiah 34:11. Remember, all these translators went to seminary and learned "the original Hebrew and Greek languages".

Isaiah 34:11 "But the CORMORANT and the BITTERN shall possess it."

King James Bible, Webster's 1833, KJV 21st Century, 1936 Jewish translation Hebrew Publishing Company, Third Millenium Bible - CORMORANT - BITTERN ASV 1901, NKJV 1982 - PELICAN - PORCUPINE

NASB - PELICAN - HEDGEHOG

RSV 1952 - HAWK - BITTERN

NRSV 1989 - HAWK - HEDGEHOG

ESV 2001 - HAWK - PORCUPINE

Darby - PELICAN - BITTERN

Douay - BITTERN - ERICIUS

NIV - DESERT OWL - SCREECH OWL

The MESSAGE - VULTURES - SKUNKS

Now, I will admit that Zoology is not my strongest subject, but I am reasonably certain there is a difference between a bittern (a bird of the heron family) and a procupine, a hedgehog or a skunk.

So, which of all these would Mr. Norris like to make his Final Authority? Oh, wait a minute. I almost forgot. His view is that no translation is inspired or inerrant, so we must go to "the original Hebrew". But didn't all these scholars do the very thing Mr. Norris suggests - go to the Hebrew?

Let's try another one or two and see if we can do any better, shall we?

How about Exodus 26:14

"Thou shalt make a covering for the tent of ram's skins dyed red, and a covering of BADGER'S skins".

The NKJV, Geneva, Darby,Young's, Webster's, KJB 21, Third Millenium Bible, Rotherham's Emphatic Bible, and the Spanish all agree with the King James Bible - Badger's skins.

The NASB says the covering would be "of PORPOISE skins" while the NIV has "SEA COWS". The RSV and the 2001 ESV both have "GOATSKINS".

While wandering around in the wilderness for 40 years, badger's skins might be troublesome to get, but how many "porpoises" (NASB) or "sea cows" (NIV) do you think they could have scrounged up?

Let's go to the original Hebrew again and see what we can come up with in Zechariah 13:5.

"But he shall say, I am no prophet, I am an husbandman; FOR MAN TAUGHT ME TO KEEP CATTLE FROM MY YOUTH."

Agreeing with the KJB are the Geneva Bible, the NKJV, KJV 21st Century, Webster's 1833 translation, the Third Millenium Bible, the 1936 Jewish translation,and the Spanish Reina Valera of 1909.

NIV - "I am a farmer; THE LAND HAS BEEN MY LIVELIHOOD SINCE MY YOUTH."

NASB - "I am a tiller of the ground, FOR A MAN SOLD ME AS A SLAVE IN MY YOUTH."

Lamsa translation of the Syriac Peshitta - "AND A MAN MADE ME ZEALOUS TO PROPHESY from my youth."

New English Bible - "I AM A TILLER OF THE SOIL WHO HAS BEEN SCHOOLED IN LUST from boyhood."

Douay version 1950 - "ADAM IS MY EXAMPLE from my youth."

Aren't you glad that we can follow the advice of men like James White and compare the various versions so we can get a better understanding of the true meaning of the text?

Let's try just one more for now and see if we can do any better.

Job 39:13 "GAVEST THOU THE GOODLY WINGS UNTO THE PEACOCKS? OR WINGS AND FEATHERS UNTO THE OSTRICH?"

So read the King James Bible as well as the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, the Spanish Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition (Diste las hermosas alas al pavo real, o alas y plumas al avestruz?), the Italian Diodati, Geneva Bible, Webster's translation, KJV 21st Century and the Third Millenium Bible.

Now for a list of various translations, all of which were done by men who went to "the original Hebrew language texts".

NKJV: "The wings of the OSTRICH WAVE PROUDLY, BUT ARE HER WINGS AND PINIONS LIKE THE KINDLY STORK?"

NASB: "The ostriches' wings FLAP JOYOUSLY with the PINIONS AND PLUMAGE OF LOVE."

NIV: "The wings of the ostrich flap joyously BUT THEY CANNOT COMPARE WITH the pinions and feathers OF THE STORK."

Young's: "literal": "The wings OF THE RATTLING ONES EXULTETH whether the pinions of the ostrich OR HAWK."

NRSV: "The ostrich's wings flap wildly THOUGH ITS PINIONS LACK PLUMMAGE."

Lamsa's: "The ostrich ROUSES HERSELP UP HAUGHTILY, THEN SHE COMES AND MAKES HER NEST."

LXX: "A wing of DELIGHTED ONES is the PEACOCK IF THE STORK AND THE OSTRICH CONCEIVE."

New English Bible: "The wings of the ostrich ARE STUNTED; her pinions and plummage ARE SO SCANTY."

Bible in Basic English: "IS the wing of the ostrich FEEBLE, OR IS IT BECAUSE SHE HAS NO FEATHERS?"

And finally the Message says: "The ostrich flaps her wings FUTILY - ALL THOSE BEAUTIFUL FEATHERS, BUT USELESS!"

"Every man did that which was right in his own eyes" Judges 21:25

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 8 - Let Me Count The Ways

It seems brother Rick Norris and James White have a lot in common. Both of them have written anti-King James Only books and both have similar scholarly findings regarding the counting of words.

On page 303, among other things, Mr. Norris complains about the actual words of the King James Bible. He says: "APPOINT is used in the KJV as a translation of 30 different Hebrew words and 12 different Greek verbs."

This may sound shocking at first glance, but if he would have looked at the NIV he would have seen that it has 27 different Hebrew words translated as "appoint" and 15 different Greek verbs as "appoint".

Mr. Norris further states that the KJV has Seven different Hebrew words translated as "ax" or "axes". A quick look at the NKJV, NIV, and NASB concordances shows they each have Six different Hebrew words translated as "ax" or "axes".

Mr. Norris saves the big one for last. He says Robert Young of Young's literal translation observed that the verb "destroy" is used for no less than 49 Hebrew words. Mr. Norris continues: "When one English word is used for many different Hebrew or Greek words, the subtle distinctions and nuances between these different words may not be detected by the English reader."

This part is always so boring, but I actually checked the NASB and counted 40 different Hebrew words translated as "destroy" while the NIV has 45 different Hebrew words translated as "destroy".

I really wish these two brothers would count their own "reliable versions" before they print such alarming statistics. Do they do it for shock value? One of several things about Mr. Norris' book that I do appreciate is that he does make a good case for eliminating shoddy study of the issues and shock value statements. I agree with him that both sides of the Bible version issue need to be open to a reasonable presentation of the truth. We still may not draw the same conclusions, but we should try to be more factual than inflammatory.

We all make mistakes and sometimes present false or unsubstantiated arguments. When shown to be clearly in error, we should revise and adjust our statements to better fit the facts. In the heat of battle I have also said things that were too harsh or unfounded. God is still working on me and hopefully I will learn as I continue to grow in the grace and knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

James White, in his book The King James Only Controversy, has an even more outrageous "shock value" claim of comparison.

In James White's book, The KJV Only Controversy, in the ninth chapter, titled "Problems in the KJV", on page 231 Mr. White states: "Jack Lewis notes that the KJV is also well known for the large variety of ways in which it will translate the same word. Now certainly there are many times when one will wish to use synonyms to translate particular terms, and context is vitally important in determining the actual meaning of a word, but the KJV goes beyond the bounds a number of times. For example, the Hebrew term for "word" or "thing" is rendered by EIGHTY FOUR different English words in the KJV! Another term, "to turn back" is rendered in one particular grammatical form by SIXTY different English words! Those who have attempted to follow the usage of a particular Hebrew or Greek term through the AV know how difficult such a task can be, and the inconsistency of the KJV in translating terms only makes the job that much harder." - End of quote.

Most people who read this in Mr. White's book would think something like: "Oh, that nasty KJV. What a lousy translation it is and how unscholarly. Why would anybody want to use that?"

Most people would never take the time to verify if there is any validity to what Mr. White says here; they would just accept his "scholarly" statements as facts. The word for "word" or "thing" is # 1697 Dabar. I only counted 78 different meanings found in the KJB, but I'll give Mr. White the benefit of the doubt and let him have his 84.

James White now works for the New American Standard Bible organization. He knows both Hebrew and Greek and professes to be an expert in textual matters. He either didn't check the validity of the claims of Jack Lewis, or he is deliberately misrepresenting the facts to bolster his attacks on God's preserved words in the King James Bible. In either case, his word count example is inexcusable.

A simple look at the complete NASB concordance shows that the NASB has translated this single word Dabar in at least NINETY THREE very different ways while the NIV has over 200 different English meanings for this single Hebrew word.

Among the 94 different English words the NASB uses to translate this single Hebrew word are: account, act, advice, affair, agreement, amount, annals, answer, anything, asked, because, business, case, cause, charge, Chronicles, claims, commandment, compliments, concerned, conclusion, conditions, conduct, conferred, consultation, conversation, counsel, custom, dealings, decree, deed, defect, desires, dispute, doings, duty, edict, eloquent, event, fulfillment, harm, idea, instructed, manner, matter, message, nothing, oath, obligations, one, order, parts, pertains, plan, plot, portion, promise, proposal, proven, purpose, question, ration, reason, records, regard, reports, request, required, rule, said, same thing, saying, so much, some, something, songs, speaks, speech, talk, task, theme, thing, this, thoughts, threats, thus, told, trouble, verdict, way, what, whatever, word and work.

As I said, the NIV has over twice this amount of different meanings - well over 200 - as compared to the KJB's 84.

The second word mentioned by Mr. White is "to turn back" and it is # 7725 Shub, and in this case Mr. White is correct in that the KJB does translate it some 60 different ways. However what James forgot to mention is that his favorite NASB has translated this same single Hebrew word at least 104 different ways while the NIV again has over 200 different meanings!

This is the type of baseless, pseudo-scholarship that both sides should avoid. What makes this even more amazing is the fact that Jack Lewis, who is quoted by James White and brings us the two examples of "word" and "turn" is one of the NIV translators!

I'm not going to address every example Mr. Norris presents in these three chapters of alleged "incorrect renderings". Most of them are quite easy to respond to and refute, but I will try to answer the more difficult ones by way of example.

In chapter fourteen Mr. Norris continues his unfounded premise by which he sits in judgment on the King James Bible. He says: "Of course, not all translations of God's Word are good since some translations are inaccurate because of a liberal bias." Yet Mr. Norris never tells us which translations he thinks are not good and inaccurate.

He continues: "Because of the plenary, verbal inspiration of God's Word IN THE ORIGINAL MANUSCRIPTS, the translator must follow THE TEXT as closely as possible."

This all sounds very good indeed, but Mr. Norris has no "the original manuscripts" to follow and there is a vast difference of opinion among Bible translators as to what THE TEXT really is. Mr. Norris is constructing an edifice whose foundation is empty air.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 9 - Beasts or Living Creatures?

Revelation 4:6-8 - "Beasts" versus "living creatures"

"and round about the throne, were four beasts full of eyes before and behind." - Revelation 4:6

In Mr. Norris' book, The Unbound Scriptures, he says: "An additional example where the KJV does not present a distinction that exists in the Greek is the book of Revelation. In this example, the KJV is following all the other English Bibles which also did not indicate this distinction."

Mr. Norris then goes on to quote several "experts" who criticize the King James Bible's translation of this word, saying: "Concerning Revelation 4:6-8 in his commentary, John Walvoord observed: "The translation 'beasts' is QUITE INACCURATE and should be changed to 'living ones'...Barnes' Notes on the N.T. has this comment about the rendering 'four beasts': "This is A VERY UNHAPPY TRANSLATION, as the word beasts BY NO MEANS conveys a correct idea of the original word."

John Rice noted: "The four beasts should be called "living creatures".

OK... So let's look at this example a bit more closely to see if there is any merit to Mr. Norris' complaint. One scholar says it should be "living ones" and the other says it should be "living creatures". Apparently they all do agree that the King James rendering of "beasts" is totally inappropriate and by no means conveys the idea of the original word.

As Mr. Norris correctly pointed out, all the previous English Bible versions translated this word as "beasts" including Wycliffe 1395, Tyndale 1525, Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, and the Geneva Bible 1599. In addition to these earlier English versions, the modern Bible in Basic English 1961, which is based on the Westcott-Hort Greek text, also translates the word as "beasts" in Revelation 4:6-8.

A few versions like the Jerusalem Bible, Goodspeed, and others translate the word as "animals". In all fairness we ask, If rendering the word zoon as beasts "by no means conveys the correct idea of the original word", then why does the NIV translate this exact same word as "beasts" in 2 Peter 2:12 "like BEASTS they too will perish."

Why does the NKJV translate this same word as "beasts" in Hebrews 13:11 "the bodies of those BEASTS are burned outside the camp"; and in 2 Peter 2:12 "beasts made to be caught and destroyed", and in Jude 10 - "what they know naturally, as brute BEASTS"? Maybe the NIV and the NKJV also "by no means convey the correct idea of the original word".

If they are so concerned about subtle distinctions in the Greek, why then does the NIV translate two very different Greek words (ktisma and zoon) as "living creature" in the book of Revelation, and the NKJV has the misfortune to translate Three different Greek words in the book of Revelation as "living creature"? (zoon, ktisma, and psukee) See Revelation 4:7; 8:9, and 16:3. Could we then not equally charge that a reader using the NIV, or the NKJV could become confused upon reading that a third of the "living creatures" died?

In the New Testament, the NIV uses three different Greek words and translates them as "creatures", while the NASB has a whopping 7 different Greek words translated as "creatures" (therion, ktisis, zoon, herpeton, ktisma, enalios, and phusikos). Are the subtle distinctions likewise lost in the NIV, NASB?

Looking at Thayer's Greek-English Lexicon 1978 edition on page 274, under the word zoon it gives the following definitions of this Greek word: "a living being, animal, a brute, a BEAST."

We could also look at the Hebrew language. For example, the NASB translates the word chayyah # 2421 as "beasts, creatures, living thing, animals, living being, and wild beasts".

See how funny some scholars are? Get ten of them in a room and you end up with twelve different opinions. There is nothing wrong with the King James Bible nor all the others Bible versions which likewise have translated this word as "beasts" in Revelation 4:6-8.

I have never confused the four beasts round about the throne who worshipped God with the many headed beast in Revelation 13:1 who rose up out of the sea speaking blasphemy and making war. But what could confuse some Bible students are the totally different readings found in Revelation 13 in the various bible versions out there today.

In the King James Bible, NKJV and several others we read in Revelation 13:1 - "And I STOOD upon the sand of the sea, and saw a beast rise up out of the sea, having seven heads and ten horns, and upon his horns ten crowns, and upon his heads the NAME of blasphemy."

However the NIV reads: "And THE DRAGON STOOD on the shore of the sea. (Not "I" but the dragon) And I saw a beast coming out of the sea...and on each head a blasphemous NAME."

The NASB read differently from 1960 through 1977. It said: "And HE stood on the sand of the seashore. AND I saw a beast coming up out of the sea...and on his head were blasphemous NAMES."

Then in 1995 the NASB once again changed to now read: "And THE DRAGON stood on the sand of the seashore. THEN I saw a beast coming up out of the sea..and on his head were blasphemous NAMES."

So is it " I " who stood on the sand of the sea, or "He" who stood on the sand of the sea, or "the dragon" who stood on the sand of the sea? Is it "the name" of blasphemy (singular) or "names" of blasphemy (plural)?

In Revelation 13:8 the KJB, NKJV, and the NIV tell us: "And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him (the beast), whose names are not written in the book of life of the LAMB SLAIN FROM THE FOUNDATION OF THE WORLD." But the NASB doesn't teach that the Lamb was slain from the foundation of the world, but reverses the Greek order of words and says: "All who dwell on the earth will worship him, everyone whose name has not been written from the foundation of the world in the book of life of the Lamb who has been slain."

Apparently these "subtle distinctions" are less important to some Bible experts than the difference between "beasts" and "living creatures". Go figure.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 10 - Mules or Hot Springs?

Everyone is biased one way or another regarding the Bible version controversy. I am biased and I freely admit it. I believe God has kept His promises to preserve His inerrant words, and after having prayed a lot and examined much of the evidence, I came to the conclusion they are found in all their purity only in the King James Holy Bible. I don't know all the answers to every objection that is raised against my beliefs, but I believe I have seen enough confirmed to me by God over and over again to give me this conviction. So now I start from the position that the King James Bible is correct - always.

Mr. Norris says in his book that we should examine the evidence on both sides and then make our decision. Yet he obviously is out to "prove" the King James Bible is not the inerrant, complete and inspired words of God. He does this not only by what he says, but by what he doesn't say. A clear example of this is found in his opening salvo of verses he thinks are incorrect as found in the King James Bible.

The first example on page 322 in large, highlighted and underlined letters is Genesis 36:24.

The King James Bible says: "...this was that Anah that found THE MULES in the wilderness, as he fed the asses of Zibeon his father."

Mr. Norris says: "In Genesis 36:24, ALL HEBREW MANUSCRIPTS have a word THAT MEANS "water or hot springs" according to MOST Bible scholars, but the KJV translators followed the rendering of the Talmud and Luther (mules). The old Syriac Peshitta an the Latin Vulgate also have a word meaning "waters" or "springs".

Mr. Norris then quotes a whole bunch of scholars that agree with him who tell us there is no way the Hebrew word can be rendered as "mules", but only as "hot springs". He tells us nothing about the other side of the story in defense of the KJB reading.

Among the bible versions that read "hot springs" are the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, and the Catholic versions. What Mr. Norris fails to mention is how many equally qualified scholars and Bible translators have sided with the King James reading of "mules".

"Mules" is the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the 1936 Jewish translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, the more modern Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach - “Aiah and Anah he is Anah who found THE MULES in the wilderness when he pastured the donkeys for his father Zibeon.Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati (de' muli nel deserto), the French Martin 1744-”est celui qui trouva LES MULETS au désert Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.

Several modern versions are at least a bit more honest as to the uncertainty of what this Hebrew word really means, and they tell us so in their footnotes. The NRSV footnote says the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain or obscure. The NIV gives this informative footnote: "the Vulgate and Syriac say he discovered water, but the meaning of the Hebrew is uncertain."

Mr. Norris makes it sound as though it is a slam dunk certainty that the King James Bible is wrong, when a more thorough examination of the evidence reveals that there are real differences of opinion even among those who have gone to "the original languages".

John Calvin gives us his translation and exposition of this verse in Latin. He translates the specific word as "mules" and not as "hot springs" - MULOS in deserto, quum passceret asinos Sibhon patris sui.

Calvin then remarks in his commentary : "This was that Anah that found the mules. Mules are the adulterous offspring of the horse and the ass..."

Adam Clarke remarks in his commentary on this verse: "St Jerome, who renders it aquas calidas, (warm springs) says THERE ARE AS MANY OPINIONS CONCERNING IT AS THERE ARE COMMENTATORS."

Mr. Clarke further states of the Syriac: "The Syriac renders it "many waters"; the author of this version having read in the Hebrew copy from which he translated µym mayim, waters, for µmy yemim, the first letters being transposed. The Targum of Johnathan ben Uzziel paraphrases the place thus: "This is the Anah who united the onager with the tame ass, and in process of time he found mules produced by them." R.D. Kimchi says: "This Anah...caused asses and horses to copulate, and so produced mules. R.S. Jarchi is of the same opinion.

Gusset, in Comment. Heb. Ling., supposes that mules, not the Emin, were found by Anah. Wagenseil thought stronger reasons led him to believe that the word means a sort of PLANT.

Mr. Clarke concludes: "From the above opinions and versions the reader may choose which he likes best or invent one for himself." He then states that he personally favors the reading of mules.

John Gill comments: "The Vulgate Latin version renders it, "hot waters"; but then to the fixing of either of these versions, the word must be altered either in its points or letters, for which there is no authority. The Targum of Onkelos renders it mighty ones or GIANTS...and with this AGREES THE SAMARITAN VERSION, "he found giants, in the wilderness"; Aben Ezra observes that many interpret the word of PLANTS OR HERBS ; and Wagenseil is of opinion that the word used is the name of an useful herb or plant, first discovered by Anah."

So, do you see how the game is played? I like to call this process Scholar Poker. "Well, my scholar can beat your scholar." "No, he can't. I'll see your scholar and raise you two more." "Ok, you're on. I call." - and they're both bluffing.

Mr. Norris and "his hand" of scholars can assert all they want about the meaning of the word, but they have merely chosen the one they like. There are many others who just as vehemently would disagree with them.

Again, "Mules" is the reading not only of the King James Bible but also of the 1936 Jewish translation by the Hebrew Publishing Company of New York, the more modern Jewish translation called the Judaica Press Tanach - “Aiah and Anah he is Anah who found THE MULES in the wilderness when he pastured the donkeys for his father Zibeon.Coverdale's Bible 1535, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1599, the 1569 Spanish Sagradas Escrituras, the Spanish Reina Valera 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras of 1998 (los mulos en el desierto), the Italian Diodati (de' muli nel deserto), the French Martin 1744-”est celui qui trouva LES MULETS au désert Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, the Third Millenium Bible, and even the New English Bible of 1970.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 11 - "Digged down a wall" or "hamstrung an ox"?

Genesis 49:6

In Mr. Norris's second salvo he plays the same game of Scholar Poker. He amasses his various scholars who all tell us the King James reading of "in their selfwill, they digged down a wall" is totally incorrect and the true reading should be "in their self-will they hamstrung an ox" as the NKJV, NASB, NIV, ESV, and most Catholic versions have it.

In Genesis chapter 49 Jacob is telling each of his sons something about what will befall them in the last days, and of their blessings or penalties. There we read what Jacob said concerning his two sons Simeon and Levi. "Simeon and Levi are brethren; instruments of cruelty are in their habitations. O my soul, come not thou into their secret; unto their assembly, mine honour, be not thou united: for in their anger they slew a man, and in their selfwill THEY DIGGED DOWN A WALL."

"They digged down a wall" is the reading of the King James Bible, the Bishop's Bible 1568, the Geneva Bible 1587, the Spanish Reina Valera of 1569 and 1602, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1998, the Italian Diodati, the Modern Greek Old Testament (not the Septuagint), the Jewish Hebrew Publishing Company of New York version of 1936, the Douay Rheims of 1950, (though more recent Catholic versions like Jerusalem Bible and St. Joseph New American Bible read "hamstrung oxen") Webster's 1833 translation, the KJV 21st Century version, and the Third Millenium Bible.

In Mr. Norris' previous example of "hot springs" versus "mules" he summoned the Syriac Peshitta version to his side; however this time, the Syriac translation agrees with the King James reading and says: "in their rage they destroyed a town wall."

Again John Calvin sides with the King James reading. He translates into Latin " et voluntate sua eradicaverunt murum". Then he comments: "Interpreters also differ respecting the meaning of the word (shor.) Some translate it "bullock," ... But a different exposition is far preferable, namely, that they "overturned a wall." For Jacob magnifies the atrociousness of their crime, from the fact, that they did not even spare buildings in their rage."

The NKJV says "THEY HAMSTRUNG AN OX", the NIV "they hamstrung OXEN" and the NASB says "they LAMED AN OX." Young's has "they ERADICATED A PRINCE"!!! So what is going on here?

It all has to do with the pointed consonants introduced in the 6th century after Christ, and the points are not considered inspired. It is well know that an individual Hebrew word can multiple meanings. Only God can guide as to the true meaning of a text or word. We believe He has done this in the King James Bible.

The reading of "hamstrung an ox or oxen", as found in the NKJV, is also contrary to the context. We are told in Genesis 34:27-29 that Simeon and Levi came upon the city of Hamor and Shechem his son and slew all the males; they spoiled the city and took their sheep, oxen and their asses and carried away all their wealth, their wives and children. They did in fact destroy the city but they did not kill or hamstring the oxen, but rather took them alive for themselves. Why would they damage what was now their own property? I believe the King James Bible is right - as always.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Part 12 - Steel, brass, copper, bronze - Paper or Plastic?

In his book, The Unbound Scriptures, Rick Norris criticizes the King James Bible for using the word "steel". He quotes several Bible dictionaries and scholars who say emphatically that the Hebrew word should never be translated as "steel". It is claimed, he says, that steel was not known during Bible times until the first century A.D.

Mr. Norris then asks: "Can KJV-only advocates offer any consistent evidence that shows that these two Hebrew words should be translated as "steel" in some verses?" Yes, brother Rick, we can, and will do so presently.

As for the claim he makes about the date of the invention and use of steel, there are many who would disagree about his supposition. A friend and fellow King James Bible believer, brother Jim, is an excellent researcher. He located a site for me by a Professor David K. Jordan, professor or Anthropology and Provost at Earl Warren College, University of California, San Diego. This professor has written an article about metalurgy and he discusses brass, iron and steel production. Here are some of his findings.

An important technique in modern and late historic steel production is "quenching," that is, heating the metal and then rapidly lowering its temperature again by plunging it into water. The result is a dramatic increase in the strength of the metal, which can be increased yet further by repeating the process. THE EARLIEST QUENCH-HARDENED STEEL THAT WE KNOW ABOUT DATES FROM ABOUT 1200 BC or so. (Homer refers to the process.) Obviously there is a fine line between iron and steel, and some metallic products are difficult to classify as quite one or quite the other.

At another site we find a discussion of ancient Indian steel production dating from the 8th century B.C.

The Ancient Indian Steel by D.P. Agrawal - J. Le Coze, of the Centre for Materials Science, France, has come out with an interesting essay about the different names of steel in different parts of the world that the ancient Indian steel known as wootz inspired. This steel making process was practiced in peninsular India since great antiquity. The ancient Indian steel was known as Damascene steel in Persia and was in great demand in the Persian courts of the First Millennium BC. Even Alexander was presented a sword made of such steel.

Coze informs that in ancient Greek, three names were attributed to steel: stomoma, adamas and chalybs. Since Hesiode (8th BC), adamas signifies inflexible or hard. It was systematically translated into "hard as steel".

I'm not going to base my defense of the King James reading of "steel" solely on the debateable timeline of the use of this material in making weaponry. It may be literal steel or a composite of various hard metals that are referred to by "a bow of steel"; but it may also be figurative.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary lists the second definition of "steel" as: Figuratively, weapons; particularly, offensive weapons, swords, spears and the like.

The word steel is found four times in the King James Bible. Three times the KJB refers to "a bow of steel" - 2 Samuel 22:35 "He teacheth my hands to war; so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms." Job 20:24 "He shall flee from the iron weapon, and the bow of steel shall strike him through." Psalm 18:34 "He teacheth my hands to war, so that a bow of steel is broken by my arms." In Jeremiah 15:12 we read: "Shall iron break the northern iron and the steel?"

The first three times the Hebrew word is # 5154 nekh-oo-shaw. This word has a variety of meanings as translated in many different Bibles, both old and new. Among the meanings found in the King James Bible for this word are: "brass" (7 times) and "steel" (3 times)

The second word for steel found in Jeremiah 15:12 is #5178 and this word likewise has several meanings including: "brass, steel, copper, fetters, and chains."

Mr. Norris says: "M'Clintock wrote: In all cases where the word 'steel' is used in the A.V. the true rendering of the Hebrew is copper." Unfortunately for Mr. Norris and Mr. M'Clintock (whoever he is), not even the NASB, NIV, or NKJV have translated it as "copper" but as "bronze".

Examples of multiple meanings for a single word abound even in the modern versions. For instance, the NASB translates the Hebrew word #5178 as brass -2 times, bronze - 130 times, and copper - one time. The NASB also translates #1270 as "axe, iron, axe head, and chains."

The NIV translates the same word as "bronze" 128 times and as "copper" 4 times.

When it suits the purposes of Mr. Norris, he refers to various older Bible versions that differ from the King James Bible to show, in his opinion, how they differ from the KJB. However these same older Bible versions often agree with the KJB against the modern versions.

The word "steel" as in the expression "a bow of steel" can be used figuratively to express something that is very strong, and not necessarily made of literal steel. We sometimes speak of someone having nerves of steel, but we mean that he is of a strong constitution and not literally made of steel. We also use the expression of having to "steel ourselves" for the coming difficulties.

One possible explanation of the expression "a bow of steel" as found in the King James Bible is that they are figurative rather than literal. In Psalms 18 David says of God that He is a BUCKLER (a shield), and A ROCK, and that God "maketh my feet like HINDS' FEET, and setteth me upon my HIGH PLACES. He teacheth my hands to war, so that a BOW OF STEEL is broken by mine arms. Thou hast also given me the SHIELD of thy salvation, and THY RIGHT HAND hath holden me up...Then did I BEAT THEM SMALL AS THE DUST."

None of these things mentioned are literal. God is not a buckler nor a Rock, and neither did God literally hold David up with His right hand. The "high places" were not literal but figurative of exaltation and victory, and David did not literally beat anyone "small as the dust". These are all figurative expressions.

Some people like to criticize the King James Bible when it is too literal, as in the expression "to cut off him that pisseth against the wall" (1 Kings 14:10), which is literally what the Hebrew texts and older Bible versions read. Then they criticize it for being too loose in expressing figurative concepts "in the receptor language".

The King James Bible is not the only one to use the word "steel" in its translation.

Webster's 1833 translation follows all four verses exactly the same as the King James Bible, as do the KJV 21st Century Version and the Third Millenium Bible.

The 1936 Jewish translation, put out by the Hebrew Publishing Company, New York, has "steel" in Job 20:24; Psalm 18:34, and in Jeremiah 15:12.

The Geneva Bible renders this same word as "steel" in Job 20:24

The Bishop's Bible 1568 has "steel" in 2 Samuel 22:35; Job 20:24, and Psalms 18:34

The Spanish Reina Valera of 1909 version has "steel" (acero) in 2 Samuel 22:35, Job 20:24, and Psalms 18:34. Likewise Las Sagradas Escrituras 1999 edition reads "steel" (acero) in these verses.

Rotherham's 1902 Emphasized Bible has steel in Ezekiel 27:19 "Wedan and Javan, from Uzal, Brought into thy traffic, - Steel, cassia and calamus, Were, in thy merchandise:"

The Revised Standard Version with Apocrypha 1952 has "steel" in Sirach 31:26 - Fire and water prove the temper of steel, so wine tests hearts in the strife of the proud.

Even the New English Bible 1970 reads in Jeremiah 15:12 "Can iron break STEEL from the north?"

The 2002 version called The Message actually has the word "steel" 10 times in the Old Testament. Here are a few examples:

Job 40:18 - His skeleton is made of steel, every bone in his body hard as steel.

Proverbs 27:17 - You use steel to sharpen steel, and one friend sharpens another.

Jeremiah 15:20 - I'll turn you into a steel wall, a thick steel wall, impregnable.

Jeremiah 17:1 - "Judah's sin is engraved with a steel chisel, A steel chisel with a diamond point-- engraved on their granite hearts, engraved on the stone corners of their altars.

Some other modern versions also have the word "steel" in them, but these do not agree even among themselves. In Nahum 2:3 the ASV 1901, the 1917 Jewish translation (JPS), Darby, Amplified 1987, and the NASB 1995 say: "the chariots are enveloped in flashing STEEL".

The brand new 1998 Complete Jewish Bible says: "The STEEL of the chariots flashes like fire as they prepare for battle", but the NIV, ESV say: "the METAL on the chariots flashes", the RSV has: "the chariots flash like FLAME", while the NKJV has: "the chariots come with flaming TORCHES." Isn't it nice that all these Bible scholars are in such total agreement with each other?

BRASS or 'bronze'?

Another oft repeated criticism of the King James Bible is its use of the word "brass" as opposed to the modern version "bronze". Brother Daryl R. Coats has written a good article refuting this silly complaint. You may see it here.

http://www.kjv-asia.com/bible_believing_ministries__daryl_coats_straining_at_brass.htm

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Previous Set, Parts 1 through 5

Next Set, Parts 13 through 17

Return to Articles