Biblical Hebrew Forum

[Hedrick Gary <GaryH AT cjfm.org>]

KJVO ... now that's a term I haven't seen in a while!

This (that is, Matt. 1:22 and Isa. 7:14) is just one example of many. Just 
look at the numerous quotes from the Hebrew Tanakh in the KJV translation of 
the Book of Hebrews, for example, where the two (that is, KJV Hebrews and KJV 
Tanakh) don't agree. Take Heb. 8:8-12 and compare it with Jer. 
31:31-34—that's a really easy one because it's an extended quote. Just lay 
them down side by side and compare them. If the KJV (that is, the Byzantine 
text type) represents the "perfect" Bible, the two should agree perfectly. 
(Otherwise, one or the other has preserved an imperfect text, which 
ultimately leads to a reductio ad absurdum situation for the KJVO position.) 
But they don't. It's obvious that Luke (or whoever wrote Hebrews) was using 
something like the LXX text, not a KJV or Received (Byzantine) text. There's 
no way around this if you're a KJV Only advocate. You can see it with your 
own eyes. But most of the KJVO guys don't really care because they're not 
terribly sophisticated to begin with, or even particularly well trained (with 
only a couple of exceptions). They tend to "educate" themselves within their 
own circles (in a sort of ingrown arrangement) and they bestow Ph.D.s on each 
other from their own institutions (again, with a few exceptions), where the 
main requirement is that they master the technique of walking and chewing gum 
simultaneously (just kidding, sort of). More importantly, these folks have 
convinced themselves that they are fighting the good fight and defending 
"the" Word of God. So you can talk until you're blue in the face only to find 
that they're not really paying attention.

You'll find lots of helpful info on this issue at www.kjvonly.org. Also, Bob 
Ross at Pilgrim Publications (publishers of Spurgeon's works) used to publish 
some interesting KJVO info. But the KJVO issue has been pretty quiet in 
recent years, so I don't know if Bob is still involved. He may have moved on 
by now to bigger and better things.

It would actually be amusing if it wasn't so sad. KJVO excesses are 
particularly unfortunate because they reflect badly on perhaps the finest and 
most majestic translation that has ever appeared in the English language (the 
KJV). For instance, just read Psalm 23 in the KJV and then try to find any 
other translation that comes close to it (my two cents).

Gary Hedrick
San Antonio, Texas USA

On Aug 22, 2010, at 9:24 PM, Steve Miller wrote:

> Dave,
> 
> I do not personally know any KJBO Christians, but I do think KJB is an
> excellent translation, better than any modern Old Testament translation, but
> it is not perfect.  Here is an argument I would use against the doctrine
> that KJB is a perfect translation:
> 
> Foremost, it is extrabiblical doctrine. 
> 
> 2nd, an instance where KJB proves itself not perfect:
> Matt 1:22 (KJB) Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth
> a son, and *they* shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is,
> God with us.
> 
> This is a quote from
> Isa 7:14 (KJB) ... Behold, a virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and **
> shall call his name Immanuel.
>