Reformed Blogging

The KJV translation of Luke 6:16 and Acts 1:13  says "the brother of" while other variants say "the son of". Although, one must notice the italics used in the KJV. The KJV translators used italics if they had to either emphasize something or to put what words they thought were missing from the manuscript they found.  And when they were come in, they went up into an upper room, where abode both Peter, and James, and John, and Andrew, Philip, and Thomas, Bartholomew, and Matthew, James the son of Alphaeus, and Simon Zelotes, and Judas [the brother] of James. Meanwhile, you may notice that other translations such as the NIV or ESV use "the son" instead of "the brother" of James in respect to Judas Thaddeus. Wait, the brother can't be the father? The Tecarta Bible footnote for the KJV says "the son of" which may say that Judas here is the son of another person named James and not James the brother of John. James the Lesser is the son of...

While reading through John 3 side by side with the ESV and the KJV, one could notice the variations of John 3:36. The whole chapter is devoted to the need to be born again or born from above. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him. (KJV) Meanwhile, other translations use "obey" over "believe" such as: Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God remains on him. (ESV) Whoever believes in the Son has eternal life; whoever disobeys the Son will not have life , but will remain under God's punishment. (GNT) He who believes in the Son has eternal life; he who does not obey the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God rests upon him. (RSV) This is one of the criticisms done by the KJV Only crowd. Again, I used to be in the KJV crowd though I feel something is wrong with it. Charles H. Spurg...

Years ago, I remembered getting into the KJV Only movement. I know there are some decent KJV Only people who try to defend the KJV without being an extremist about it. David W. Cloud of Way of Life Literature admits he is KJV Only but rejects the Ruckmanite movement . Personally, Cloud's expose against Ruckmanism should be taken into consideration if you're a KJV Only or if you choose to stay in that field. The late Peter S. Ruckman turned out to be a heretic that even some KJV Onlyists reject. Meanwhile, the late Jack T. Chick apparently doesn't see Ruckman for the heretic he is . Now, I was thinking about another conspiracy theory called the existence of this Alexandrian Cult which is named after Alexandria in Egypt. Manuscripts in Alexandria were to be rejected based on the source. James L. Melton apparently supports heretic Ruckman, a name that's probably not too familiar among KJV Onlyists because some of them even reject him, and Gail Ripplinger who is also anothe...

One of the biggest objections done by KJV Onlyists against the Living Bible (TLB) is the rendition of 1 Kings 18:27. KJV Onlyists raise the objection that the rendition is utterly disgusting or inappropriate to read to our children. The TLB translation renders 1 Kings 18:27 as follows: About noontime, Elijah began mocking them. “You’ll have to shout louder than that,” he scoffed, “to catch the attention of your god! Perhaps he is talking to someone, or is out sitting on the toilet , or maybe he is away on a trip, or is asleep and needs to be wakened!” I find this a bit of a double standard since the KJV actually uses the phrase "pisseth against the wall" six times so how is that different from Baal sitting on the toilet? I do prefer the way the KJV, ESV, and NIV render it. The three renditions are as follows: And it came to pass at noon, that Elijah mocked them, and said, Cry aloud: for he is a god; either he is talking, or he is pursuing , or he is in a journey, or peradvent...

One good reason not to support Steven Anderson is how ridiculously dangerous this guy can get. Christians should not  be listening to Alex Jones' conspiracy theorist programs or be reading Jesus-is-Savior.com. I used to read Jesus-is-Savior by David J. Stewart a lot without realizing that the guy was having a lot of weird doctrines (such as gap theory which should've been a red flag for me to avoid the site), flip-flopping (such as saying a believer can live like the rest of the world then flips his stance on the next), and conspiracy theories. Stewart even made me doubt my salvation reading his site because I believed in repentance of sin from the song "Victory in Jesus". Now, back to Anderson, who can really forget this ridiculous sermon of "pisseth against the wall". The KJV has the phrase "pisseth against the wall" mentioned six times. It's amazing that every time the phrase is mentioned, it's connected to the  judgment of people. Notic...

I think one of the reasons why extreme KJV Onlyism has to go is with some renditions. I admit that I was shocked to find Charles H. Spurgeon was not KJV Only. Maybe, some KJV Only pastors can even acknowledge that some of their peers reject KJV Onlyism while still embracing them as family. Now, another textual criticism to think about is how the KJV renders Hosea 13:2 concerning human sacrifices and idolatry. This would be a good comparison between versions.  And now they sin more and more, and have made them molten images of their silver, and idols according to their own understanding, all of it the work of the craftsmen: they say of them, Let the men that sacrifice kiss the calves. (KJV) Using the Tecarta Bible, I decided to check the KJV footnotes and discovered that sacrifices refer to human sacrifices. I was thinking that these calves were probably symbolic to Moloch after getting through the footnote. Other renditions render Hosea 13:2 as follows: And now they sin more and mo...

I'd like to say that it's stubborn for me to get out of moderate KJV Onlyism though I've been using the ESV or NIV as a secondary reference. However, I really am against any form of extreme KJV Onlyism. Some of the best moderate KJV Onlyists are like David W. Cloud of Way of Life Literature. Those I reject are the likes of Chick Publications, Jesus-is-Savior (which is an offshoot of the Hyles-Anderson College), and Faithful Word Baptist Church. Even while I was still a KJV Only, I still find the idea that those preachers who don't preach from the KJV aren't saved to be rather absurd. I was pretty much a KJV Only but I embraced many who weren't KJV Only. I simply shared the express desire that they would go to KJV Only. Then I learned from The Spurgeon Library that Charles H. Spurgeon wasn't KJV Only. Some KJV Onlyists would admit that and say their concern is because of the apostate age in which the modern translations took place. There's even hearsay th...

One of the reasons why I got into the KJV Only movement before (and I feel like I'm really going to get out now) is the way Matthew 27:35 is rendered in the modern versions. For modern versions, I usually prefer to refer to the NIV and the ESV. The two versions are very much widely used. Personally, I love the KJV and the way a lot of verses are rendered. I still think Acts 8:37 is not a verse in question. I still think that 1 John 5:7's end statement is still very important. Yet, Charles H. Spurgeon wasn't KJV Only. I was thinking of how the verse was rendered by the KJV vs. the other versions. Matthew 27:35 is rendered as: And they crucified him, and parted his garments, casting lots: that it might be fulfilled which was spoken by the prophet, They parted my garments among them, and upon my vesture did they cast lots. (KJV) And when they had crucified him, they divided his garments among them by casting lots. (ESV) The statement is said that words have been removed. Howev...

I remembered the time I got into the KJV Only movement for many reasons. I felt that the missing verses (such as Acts 8:37) were really there. One of the big translation differences was that Daniel 3:25 in the KJV says "the fourth is like the Son of God". Meanwhile, modern translations say, "The fourth is like a son of the gods." This is one of the big reasons why I tend to lean to the KJV more often than not even when Charles H. Spurgeon was not KJV Only.  J. Vernon McGee's commentary also says the following regarding the matter: Another amazing fact was to see a fourth Man whom Nebuchadnezzar described as being in the form "like the Son of God". This should be translated "like a son of gods". Nebuchadnezzar had no knowledge of the living and true God at this time, although Daniel had spoken of Him. Having no spiritual perception, Nebuchadnezzar could only testify to His unusual appearance - He looked like one of the sons of the gods. Howeve...

Isaiah 52-53 talks about the suffering of Christ. Isaiah 52:13 has a doctrinal footnote from the King James Study Bible called "Servant Of The Lord". This is how it's being described: Isaiah prophetically uses the title "Servant" to designate Christ, especially concerning His suffering for sin. That suffering is indeed as both vicarious (53:4-9) and victorious (53:10-12). The title "Servant of the Lord" emphasizes Christ's faithful obedience to the Father during His earthly ministry (cf. John 5:19). The Servant passages in Isaiah were some of the key texts used in preaching the gospel in the early days of Christianity (cf. Acts 8:32-35).    Illustration: In the New Testament, Christians described themselves as servants of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ. This title conveyed their willignness to depend upon and completely obey God (cf. James 1:1).    Application: Christians today should also follow the example of the suffering Servant of the LORD, ...

Perhaps one reason why I love the King James Version (KJV) the most is because of the way it's translated. One of the translations is where Satan in Isaiah 14:12 (whose context is a parable against the King of Babylon) is called Lucifer. The context was that a haughty king is compared to Satan. Later, the King of Tyre was also compared to Satan in Ezekiel 28:14. Later translations would use words like "morning star". Any older copy of the KJV would have a marginal note calling Satan "Day-Star". The word Lucifer is the Latin word for morning star or light bringing . The modern translations (such as the NIV) use the word "morning star" though I prefer the word "Lucifer" to make a distinction. Apparently, calling Satan a "morning star" in the modern versions is still a correct translation. Before one says that the modern versions are allegedly denying the fall of Lucifer - we need to see that Jesus and Satan are also compared to lions...

The translation of Proverbs 30:28 has varied from Bible to Bible. Some say lizard while others say spider. I personally prefer the word "spider" over "lizard". However, there's some interesting trivia that we might have ignored. Kingsnake Blog Did you know that there's a animal called the spider gecko? Among the many varieties are the Persian spider gecko. It's scientific name is  Agamura persica . It's found in the deserts and Persia (now Iran) is part of the Middle East where Israel is. Solomon probably heard of the fascinating Persian spider gecko. The spider gecko is called as such because of its long spindly legs. It should be interesting that this variation of the spider gecko is found in the desert. I'd believe that these variety of geckos have made it into Israel even before Solomon became king. Granted, the KJV translators spelled out semaweth as "spider" instead of "lizard". The Strong's Condordance quotes the B...

There are two accounts of Elhanan found in 2nd Samuel 21:19 and 1st Chronicles 20:5. Perhaps one reason why I tend to be a KJV Onlyist is that I found out about the way the two verses are rendered. I was thinking about how the KJV renders 2nd Samuel 21:19. And there was again a battle in Gob with the Philistines, where Elhanan the son of Jaareoregim, a Bethlehemite, slew [the brother of] Goliath the Gittite, the staff of whose spear was like a weaver's beam. (KJV) Notice that I placed the phrase "the brother of" in brackets because in the KJV - it's written in italics . If you ever wondered what the italics were for in the KJV - it's because they were meant to be added with the words that the scholar wanted to emphasize were not found in the manuscripts they worked with. The italics helped the bridge but they were probably in doubt. So, what's the reason why 2nd Samuel 21:19 didn't have "the brother of" and was written instead in italics? Some as...

One of the reasons why some critics of the King James Version (KJV) has always been linked to some years that were too long. One controversy was with Ahaziah's age (22 and 42) without knowing that one meant the biological age and the other meant the number of years since the House of Omri got established. Reading through classical commentaries that used the Textus Receptus and the KJV would be helpful in finding out why the KJV translators wrote such numbers. Another issue is that 1 Samuel 15:7 writes that Absalom waited for 40 years while other translations (which also used the historical accounts of Josephus as the source) wrote the literal, four years. So how do we try to reconcile this? John Gill's commentary on 1 Samuel 15:7 writes as follows: And it came to pass after forty years,.... Or four years; so long it was from the reconciliation of Absalom to David, as Josephus says; and so read Theodoret on the place, the Syriac and Arabic versions: but some say it was either fo...

Make no mistake that I love the King James Version and it's what I use for my daily readings and citing of verses. I still feel that the 17 verses not found in later translations are still important verses. I think that modern translations should either put them on footnotes or at least bracket them if they are in doubt. I was thinking about how David W. Cloud of Way of Life is still someone I'd endorse even if he's got some things wrong. In Cloud's article " King James Only " - he has what he doesn't mean by KJV Only: If “King James Only” defines one who believes that the KJV was given by inspiration, I am not “King James Only.” The authority of the King James Bible is the product of preservation, not inspiration . The term “inspiration” refers to the giving of the Scripture through holy men of old (2 Tim. 3:16; 2 Pet. 1:20-21). At the same time, I agree with the Pulpit Commentary when it says, “We must guard against such narrow, mechanical views of inspi...

The Bible talks about two kinds of fear. Vernon McGee's "Thru the Bible Commentary" on 2 Timothy 1:7 has him talking about them. One is the healthy kind of fear. The other is an unhealthy kind of fear. We do know that we need the fear of the LORD before we can attain true wisdom (Proverbs 9:10). In McGee's commentary, we can read where he thinks the word fear is better translated as cowardice . Fear is a natural thing and it can be a lifesaver. For example, it's a fear of consequences that keeps me following the rules. Why do I follow the ten commandments? It's because I fear what could happen of the consequences of sin. I may no longer be under the law but I still follow the law because I love God and fear the consequences of my actions. It's like a son fearing that his parents would have a big belt waiting for them if they did something wrong. Any child of God caught disobeying the moral law can expect God to spank them. I also follow other rules such a...

I can't deny that the alma mater I went to was not a King James Only Baptist school. I was saved and I started using the New International Version (NIV). The pastor who preached to me the message of salvation usually used the NIV though he also used the King James Version (KJV). Then I remembered an Anabaptist pastor who preached on TV and I used to tune in to him until he got banned on air. That Anabaptist pastor though used to be a Bible Baptist then became an extreme KJV Only. I even heard that some moderate KJV Only pastors don't like his approach with fighting pastors who didn't use the KJV. Moderate KJV Onlyists said, "If you want our brethren to use the KJV - educate, don't fight!" I've met moderate fundamental Baptists who still embrace non-KJV Only as brothers and sisters in Christ. However, they are still convinced that the KJV is the most accurate translation and wish their brethren to stop using other versions. For one, I could say that K...