Translate

Showing posts with label Answers. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Answers. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 03, 2025

ALL CAPS in the King James Bible

Q. Why does the King James Bible print certain things in block all capital letters, such as “I AM THAT I AM” and “MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN”?

A. As far as I know, the translators did not leave a direct explanation of their reason for using ALL CAPS. Therefore, we must learn and discern by research and comparison. I have found that there are about 25 places that have a section or word that is printed in ALL CAPS (Exodus 3:14; 6:3; 28:36; 39:30; Deuteronomy 28:58; Psalm 68:4; 83:18; Isaiah 12:2; 26:4; Jeremiah 23:6; Daniel 5:25-28; Zechariah 3:8; 6:12; 14:20; Matthew 1:21; 1:25; 27:37; Mark 15:26; Luke 1:31; 2:21; 23:38; John 19:19; Acts 17:23; Revelation 17:5; 19:16). This counting excludes all the places in the Old Testament where LORD translates JHVH [יהוה] (LORD – Small Caps or ALL CAPS, a printer’s style choice – translates the name Jehovah or the shortened form Jah).

Comparing all these cases, we find that this print style is used for emphasis, in two categories: (1) the name of God; (2) something written or engraved on something. It could be said that sometimes the categories overlap, with the “name written.”

Emphasis on the name of God.

  • Exodus 3:14 I AM THAT I AM
  • Exodus 3:14 I AM 
  • Exodus 6:3 JEHOVAH
  • Deuteronomy 28:58 THE LORD THY GOD
  • Psalm 68:4 JAH
  • Psalm 83:18 JEHOVAH
  • Isaiah 12:2 JEHOVAH
  • Isaiah 26:4 JEHOVAH
  • Jeremiah 23:6 THE LORD OUR RIGHTEOUSNESS
  • Zechariah 3:8 BRANCH
  • Zechariah 6:12 BRANCH
  • Matthew 1:21 JESUS
  • Matthew 1:25 JESUS
  • Luke 1:31 JESUS
  • Luke 2:21 JESUS

Emphasis on an inscription, something written.

  • Exodus 28:36 HOLINESS TO THE LORD
  • Exodus 39:30 HOLINESS TO THE LORD
  • Daniel 5:25 MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN
  • Daniel 5:26-28 MENE | TEKEL | PERES
  • Zechariah 14:20 HOLINESS UNTO THE LORD
  • Matthew 27:37 THIS IS JESUS THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • Mark 15:26 THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • Luke 23:38 THIS IS THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • John 19:19 JESUS OF NAZARETH THE KING OF THE JEWS
  • Acts 17:23 TO THE UNKNOWN GOD
  • Revelation 17:5 MYSTERY, BABYLON THE GREAT, THE MOTHER OF HARLOTS AND ABOMINATIONS OF THE EARTH
  • Revelation 19:16 KING OF KINGS, AND LORD OF LORDS

You should be able to select the above photo and enlarge it.

Note 1: I write “about 25” considering some Bible publishers may have varied in the use of ALL CAPS (and some may possibly use Small Caps where others use ALL CAPS).

Note 2: When JEHOVAH or JAH is translated specifically in reference to God’s name, it is capitalized. When Jehovah or Jah is included in some other name (a person or place), it is not capitalized.

Note 3: Exodus 17:15 was initially an exception to this, with what can be considered a printer’s error capitalizing JEHOVAH in Jehovah-nissi. That was later corrected to correspond with the other uses (Jehovah-jireh, Jehovah-shalom).

Note 4: Jesus was not initially capitalized in Matthew 1:21-25 and Luke 1:31, 2:31. This was standardized in ALL CAPS at least by the 1682 Cambridge printing.

If you notice any errors or have any thoughts on this, please let me know.

Wednesday, March 26, 2025

The Baptist Name

A good name is rather to be chosen than great riches... Proverbs 22:1

A good name is better than precious ointment… Ecclesiastes 7:1

Q. Should churches continue to use the name Baptist? Is it still meaningful and useful in our day and time?

A. The name Baptist is a good name, though ultimately it is just name. It has a godly heritage and still identifies a core set of beliefs held by churches using that name. However, it is necessary to understand that it strictly should be an identifier rather than a “name” – that is, the churches of the Bible are one faith, and do not have a denominational name as such. A scriptural church is just a congregation or assembly that belongs to Christ. Because so many so-called churches exist, we use denominational names to distinguish the different kinds.

In a sense, in contemporary U.S. religion, the name “Baptist” has been soiled. There are so many kinds of Baptists that cannot agree, and a special problem is those Baptist churches which have denied the faith and become worse than infidels.  Nevertheless, “Baptist” is an honorable name, and one worth keeping. True Baptist churches should faithfully hold to the faith once delivered to the saints, and Baptist church members should live in obedience to the word of God. In that way, may we redeem the name.

On the other hand, it is unethical to appropriate the Baptist name and not hold what is understood to be Baptist in faith and practice. If a church calls itself “Baptist,” it ought be Baptist!

Some Baptist churches, for whatever reason, have decided to drop the name “Baptist” as an identifier. A church might be “Baptist” in official documents, affiliated with a Baptist association, convention, or fellowship, but yet not mention the name “Baptist” on the church sign, in public advertising, etc. They may do this because they think others have soiled the name, or they might do this to remove a barrier in outreach. If the latter reason, especially, they might be guilty of “false advertising” (e.g., people who think they are visiting a non-denominational church may feel deceived when they discover it is a Baptist Church).[i]

If your church is a real Baptist Church – truly holds the core beliefs of Baptists – then gladly honor your good name. If your church is faking it, please remove the name so you don’t ruin it for the rest of us.


[i] Some churches may feel embarrassed by the actions of their association, convention, or fellowship. If that body is so embarrassing that a church wants to hide the connection, perhaps the church should sever the connection! It seems incongruous to support a particular Baptist denominational body and at the same time hide that fact from the public and potential church members.

Tuesday, February 04, 2025

The Fall of Man

What is the cause (or causes) of sin and the fall of man?

Could any other act of Adam and Eve in their perfect environment in the Garden – other than disobedience to the one divine prohibition – have been a sin and the cause of plunging mankind into sin and death? For example, when Eve either imprecisely restated what Adam told her or added to God’s word or lied or used an idiomatic expression or something else (you decide) by saying “neither shall ye touch it” – was that a sin?

God gave the command to Adam, before he created Eve. “thou” (singular) shalt not eat of it. “thou” shalt surely die. Eve only knew the command of God mediated through Adam. The command to not eat the fruit of the tree was in effect a command to stay away from it. Eve responds to the serpent with “we” and “ye” (plural). Surely this is not disobedience, but recognition that the command to man thereafter applied to man and woman, for they are one.

The serpent did not challenge “neither shall ye touch it” as being a false statement, but challenged the strength of the statement “lest ye die.”

Was Eve deceived into saying “neither shall ye touch it,” or was she deceived into believing the fruit was good and “Ye shall not surely die”? Verse 6 successfully answers that, “And when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was pleasant to the eyes, and a tree to be desired to make one wise, she took of the fruit thereof.”

Probably most of the preachers within my range of fellowship might say something like or in the vicinity of “Eve added to God’s word,” but I think they also would draw back from saying that was the cause of the fall. We should carefully think about how we address and explain the fall. The biblical emphasis is plainly focused on Adam’s disobedience.

God gave a divine prohibition to Adam, concerning the tree of knowledge of good and evil. “thou shalt not eat of it.” “thou shalt surely die.” (Genesis 2:17) The fall and the condemnation of sin is because of the disobedience to this prohibition that God placed on man, the command to not eat of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. When God spoke to Adam after his disobedience, he emphasized the eating of the tree. “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee that thou shouldest not eat?” (Genesis 3:11) When he gives the cause, it is again related to the eating of the tree. “And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it…” (Genesis 3:17-19) Eve was beguiled; Adam was not (Genesis 3:12-13; 1 Timothy 2:13-14). Without being deceived, Adam disobeyed God and freely took the fruit his wife gave him.

Read Genesis 3.

Wednesday, January 01, 2025

Jesus Christ our Lord in Romans 1:3

Q. Where do the words “…Jesus Christ, our Lord…” come from in Romans 1:3?

A. This is a confusing conundrum created when merely comparing verses to verses in various translations. In what are verses 1 through 7, the words ιησοῦ χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν (Jesus Christ the Lord of us, that is Jesus Christ our Lord) are found in the sentence, in what is verse 4 in the Greek once the sentence is divided into verses, but in verse 3 in some English translations and in verse 4 in other English translations.

This is an interesting question and find, and one that does not seem to have much discussion about it, either pro or con (as far as what I have been able to find). I had not noticed this before, and so had to take a careful look. “Jesus Christ our Lord” (or “our Lord Jesus Christ”) is also included in verse 3 in some translations outside of the King James line of texts, such as the CSB, CEV, ERV, NCV; so it is not just a King James Bible issue.

Observe: Verses 1-7 (in both KJV & ESV, from which I give excerpts below) are one long sentence. The words “Jesus Christ our Lord” are in the sentence in all versions – it is just placed differently in the sentence. This is best considered a translator’s decision as to how its reads best in English. Different decisions have been made by different translators. None of them delete “Jesus Christ our Lord.”

Here is the King James translation, where the words are in verse 3, and the ESV is used as a representative of the words being in verse 4.
  • AKJV vs. 3-4: concerning his Son Jesus Christ our Lord, which was made of the seed of David according to the flesh; and declared to be the Son of God with power, according to the spirit of holiness, by the resurrection from the dead:
  • ESV, vs. 3-4: concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and was declared to be the Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord,
There is a description or designation of how English and Greek differ syntactically. Much of our language is governed by word placement in the sentence (syntax), whereas in Greek it is governed more by inflection; it is much more flexible regarding word order. English is an analytic language, in which syntactic roles are assigned to words primarily by word order (the words change order and relationship to convey grammatical information). It may also be called or considered configurational. Greek is a synthetic language, in which syntactic relationship between the words is achieved or assigned via inflection (the words change form to convey grammatical information). It may also be called or considered non-configurational.

I have studied Esperanto some in the past. (I am not good at it, because I have never needed to use it.) Esperanto is a created language and is more extreme than Greek for non-configuration. It is designed so that word order has little or no input toward the meaning of the sentence – you just have to put the right endings on the words and they mean the right thing regardless of placement in the sentence.

All this to say, where to best put “Jesus Christ, our Lord” in this long sentence is a translational consideration. It is not a textual difference in the Greek. To me it reads more smoothly in the KJV, but obviously part of that is that I have been reading it that way all my life.

My conclusion is:
  • that the words obviously belong somewhere in the long sentence
  • that we should not think of the sentence just in terms of verses for the purpose of understanding the issue here
  • that the difference is a translational choice
  • that the King James placement is best

Note: Seeing this as one long sentence will go a long way in understanding the problem. One can see below how that in the SBL Greek NT it is one sentence.

1 Παῦλος δοῦλος Χριστοῦ Ἰησοῦ, κλητὸς ἀπόστολος, ἀφωρισμένος εἰς εὐαγγέλιον θεοῦ 2 ὃ προεπηγγείλατο διὰ τῶν προφητῶν αὐτοῦ ἐν γραφαῖς ἁγίαις 3 περὶ τοῦ υἱοῦ αὐτοῦ, τοῦ γενομένου ἐκ σπέρματος Δαυὶδ κατὰ σάρκα, 4 τοῦ ὁρισθέντος υἱοῦ θεοῦ ἐν δυνάμει κατὰ πνεῦμα ἁγιωσύνης ἐξ ἀναστάσεως νεκρῶν, Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ τοῦ κυρίου ἡμῶν, 5 δι’ οὗ ἐλάβομεν χάριν καὶ ἀποστολὴν εἰς ὑπακοὴν πίστεως ἐν πᾶσιν τοῖς ἔθνεσιν ὑπὲρ τοῦ ὀνόματος αὐτοῦ, 6 ἐν οἷς ἐστε καὶ ὑμεῖς κλητοὶ Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ, 7 πᾶσιν τοῖς οὖσιν ἐν Ῥώμῃ ἀγαπητοῖς θεοῦ, κλητοῖς ἁγίοις· χάρις ὑμῖν καὶ εἰρήνη ἀπὸ θεοῦ πατρὸς ἡμῶν καὶ κυρίου Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ.

Wednesday, October 30, 2024

“Who” is Antichrist?

Q. The New King James Version Bible (NKJV) capitalizes personal pronouns that refer to God. The NKJV capitalizes the pronoun “Who” in Zechariah 11:17. This does not refer to God, and some even interpret it to mean the Antichrist. Why is “Who” capitalized here? 

A. Yes, the New King James Bible capitalizes personal pronouns that refer to God (e.g. “How long, O Lord? Will You forget me forever?” Psalm 13:1; “for He dried up her expectation” Zechariah 9:5). This problem in Zechariah 11:17 is an unfortunate unintended consequence of the intersection of two NKJV editorial choices – the choice to capitalize pronouns that refer to deity, and the choice to format some verses as poetry so that each “line/verse” begins with a capital letter. 

The capitalization of pronouns in the NKJV (and some other translations) is an editorial or publishing choice. It is not matter of matching capitalization in inspired originals, but is rather a matter of interpretation and insertion made by the translators. The Hebrew and Greek do not distinguish such, so the translators have to make an educated guess. They probably get it right most of the time. However, rather than mostly getting it right, they could leave it alone in order for the readers under the leadership of the Holy Spirit to interpret whether or not it is a reference to God. The NKJV Preface describes their relevant (to this question) formatting in this way.

“...reverence for God in the present work is preserved by capitalizing pronouns including You, Your, and Yours, which refer to Him. Additionally, capitalization of these pronouns benefits the reader by clearly distinguishing divine and human persons referred to in a passage. Without such capitalization the distinction is often obscure, because the antecedent of a pronoun is not always clear in the English translation.” (“Preface,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, p. iv)

“Poetry is structured as contemporary verse to reflect the poetic form and beauty of the passage in the original language.” (“Preface,” Holy Bible, The New King James Version, Nashville, TN: Thomas Nelson Publishers, 1982, p. iv)

These two rules combine to confuse the reader in Zechariah 11:17. “Who” is significantly capitalized here in the NKJV Zechariah 11:17 simply because it is a word that begins the line of poetry. Its capitalization has nothing to do with the rule regarding capitalization of pronouns that refer to God. Nevertheless, it is ripe for confusion. A reader thinking of capitalized divine pronouns and recognizing “Who” as a pronoun may miss and misunderstand the reason for the capitalization of “Who” in this verse in the NKJV. (This style is also found in translations such as the LSB and NASB.)

Another thing that can exacerbate the problem is that some online sources do not keep the formatting found in the print edition of the NKJV.

If I copy the NKJV Zechariah 11:17 from the “NKJV only view” in Bible Gateway, it looks like this.

“Woe to the worthless shepherd,
Who leaves the flock!
A sword shall be against his arm
And against his right eye;
His arm shall completely wither,
And his right eye shall be totally blinded.”

However, if I copy the NKJV Zechariah 11:17 from the “all English translations view” in Bible Gateway, it looks like this:

“Woe to the worthless shepherd, Who leaves the flock! A sword shall be against his arm And against his right eye; His arm shall completely wither, And his right eye shall be totally blinded.”

Some people make statements like this: “The capitalizing of pronouns that refer to God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit is a way of honoring God and showing esteem.” With this rule, translators and writers become stricter than God himself, who did not inspire distinguished capitalized pronouns. God chose to inspire his words originally in Hebrew and Greek. Hebrew has no such thing as upper-case and lower-case letters. The Greek manuscripts have either all uncial/majuscule (upper-case) or all minuscule (lower-case) letters. God did not inspire his penmen to give any special attention to pronouns that refer to him. We would do well to follow God’s example rather than preferring our own traditions. Uzzah may have meant well when he reached to steady the ark, but how much better to obey rather than just mean well.


Note: I am not extremely familiar with the NKJV. I do not use it for reading and study. However, a random search did not reveal to me any instances when the “Who” and “Whose” pronouns referencing deity were ever capitalized, as it with “You” and “Yours,” “He” and “His,” etc.

Friday, October 04, 2024

How does the Bible define drunkenness

Q. How does the Bible define being drunk, that is, in a state of drunkenness?

A. In our state we have a secular and legal approach for defining drunkenness, especially regarding driving a motor vehicle. It is determined by a device called a breathalyzer. The state tests and legally defines the point of drunkenness with blood alcohol level – 0.08 blood alcohol concentration.[i] 

However, our question if different. The question now before us is how the Bible, our rule of faith and practice, defines it.  The Bible-believing Christian must answer this the same way regardless of his or her position on drinking in moderation or abstention. We must go to the Bible and find out what it says about drunkenness. There we will find guidance. Inspired, inerrant guidance.

Please consider the following points from Scripture.

There is a point at which one passes from “drinking wine” to drunkenness; that is, these are two different states. For examples, Genesis 9:21 ”And he drank of the wine, and was drunken...” Deuteronomy 29:19 ”And it come to pass, when he heareth the words of this curse, that he bless himself in his heart, saying, I shall have peace, though I walk in the imagination of mine heart, to add drunkenness to thirst:”

The Bible speaks of “drunken” but also of an exceeding state of that: 1 Samuel 25:36 ”And Abigail came to Nabal; and, behold, he held a feast in his house, like the feast of a king; and Nabal's heart was merry within him, for he was very drunken” The “very drunken” state is most obvious, while drunken might not be quite as readily observable.

Certain actions, states or physical signs are often associated with drunkenness in the Bible, such as staggering, shaking and vomiting. Psalm 107:27 They reel to and fro, and stagger like a drunken man, and are at their wit’s end. (Cf. Jer. 23:9, Isa. 19:14; Prov. 23:29)[ii]

Actions or states unrelated to alcohol sometimes are mistaken for drunkenness. 1 Samuel 1:13 ”Now Hannah, she spake in her heart; only her lips moved, but her voice was not heard: therefore Eli thought she had been drunken.” (Cf. Acts 2:15)

Drunkenness is associated with loss of control of one’s senses or actions. Sometimes “loss of control” can be in a good way – being controlled by the Spirit. Ephesians 5:18 ”And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit;” There are also other figures in the Bible that speak of being “drunk” on something other than wine/strong drink that seem to generally share the meaning of not being in control or possession of one’s faculties. (Cf. Job 12:24-25; Lam. 4:21; Rev. 17:2)

Drunkenness is caused by an excess of wine. Compare Ephesians 5:18 and 1 Peter 4:3. For the time past of our life may suffice us to have wrought the will of the Gentiles, when we walked in lasciviousness, lusts, excess of wine, revellings, banquetings, and abominable idolatries:

This may be simplistic. Perhaps it does not draw as exact a line as you may want. But looking at these verses are a starting place for a BIBLICAL definition of drunkenness.

It is also worth remembering that the Bible clearly and definitely warns against drunkenness. See, for examples, Proverbs 20:1; 23:20-21, 29-35; 1 Corinthians 5:11; Ephesians 5:18.


[i] I’m not sure if it is proper to say this defines drunkenness legally so much as to say it is the point where driving becomes illegal. For example, I don’t think BAC has anything to do with “public intoxication” in Texas, which appears to be at a law officer’s discretion.
[ii] We understand other things can also cause these signs, such as sickness.

Tuesday, September 10, 2024

Scofield Reference Bible and the King James

Q. Does the Scofield Reference Bible and its editor C. I. Scofield support the King James Bible and/or Textus Receptus?

A. The short answer is no.

I have not written much on my blog about C. I. Scofield or his reference Bible, but I can easily be classified as “not a fan.” The Scofield Reference Bible was compiled and edited (with the help of “consulting editors”) by Cyrus Ingerson Scofield (1843-1921), a popular American theologian and Bible conference speaker, who is best remembered for his teachings on dispensationalism and eschatology.

The first edition of the the Scofield Reference Bible appeared in 1909, published by the Oxford University Press in Oxford, England. A revised second edition came out in 1917. It is the most popular and best representative of Scofield’s work and theology. In 1967, 46 years after Scofield’s death, Oxford University published a revision of Scofield’s Bible, The New Scofield Reference Bible (edited by E. Schuyler English). It included some updated or modernized words inserted in the King James text, and changed some of the old study notes (which sometimes muted or disputed the notes of Scofield himself). The 21st century saw another edition of the Scofield Bible, with the Scofield reference notes made available in the ESV, HCSB. NASB, NIV, and NKJV in addition to the KJV.[i]

Though Scofield placed his cross references and study notes within the text of the King James Bible, some notes make it apparent that he was committed to textual revision above any support of the King James Bible. His revisionism is quite muted compared to what we see among the text critics of the 21st century. However, he was not committed to the King James text and translation. The following notes demonstrate his position on textual variants, the Greek manuscripts, and the Critical Text.

Matthew 23:14
  • s. The best MSS. omit v. 14.
Mark 16:9
  • 1. The passage from verse 9 to the end is not found in the two most ancient manuscripts, the Sinaitic and Vatican, and others have it with partial omissions and variations. But it is quoted by Irenaeus and Hippolytus in the second or third century.
John 5:3
  • m. The Sinai MS. omits “waiting for the moving of the water,” and all of v. 4.
John 7:53
  • 1. John 7.53-8:11 is not found in some of the most ancient manuscripts. Augustine declares that it was stricken from many copies of the sacred story because of a prudish fear that it might teach immorality! But the immediate context (vs. 12-46), beginning with Christ’s declaration, “I am the light of the world,” seems clearly to have its occasion in the conviction wrought in the hearts of the Pharisees, as recorded in verse 9; as also, it explains the peculiar virulence of the Pharisees’ words (v. 41).
Acts 8:37
  • h. The best authorities omit v. 37.
Hebrews 10:23
  • s. confession of the hope.
1 John 5:7
  • o. It is generally agreed that v. 7 has no real authority, and has been inserted.
The above notes demonstrate that C. I. Scofield was not a proponent of the TR, neither an avid defender of the KJV. However, in contrast to many in the Critical Text camp today, Scofield seems noncommittal on Mark 16:9-20, and seems to support the Pericope Adulterae. There are no notes at Matthew 6:13; Luke 23:34; Ephesians 3:9; Revelation 16:5; 22:19, some verses which are hotly discussed today.

There are additional problems with Scofield and his notes, such as his universalist dispensationalist ecclesiology, and the promotion of the Gap Theory (a long gap of time between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2).

Genesis 1:2
  • 3. Jer. 4.23-26, Isa. 24:1 and Isa. 45.18, clearly indicate that the earth had undergone a cataclysmic change as the result of divine judgment. The face of the earth bears everywhere the marks of such a catastrophe. There are not wanting intimations which connect it with a previous testing and fall of angels. See Ezk. 28.12-15 and Isa. 14.9-14, which certainly go beyond the kings of Tyre and Babylon.
The Scofield Reference Bible and its editor C. I. Scofield do not and did not support the King James Bible and/or Textus Receptus. Neither do its past and current publisher.


[i] For more on the history of the Scofield Bible, see Gordon Campbell, Bible: The Story of the King James Version, 1611-2011 (pp. 241-248).

Wednesday, May 22, 2024

Nay on the KJV Parallel Bible

Baptist missionary Christopher Yetzer has been doing some review and critique of the KJV Parallel Bible website. This project was “conceived, designed, and organized by Mark Ward,” who is the author of Authorized: The Use and Misuse of the King James Bible, Blogger, YouTuber, and ubiquitous “Apostle” to King James Onlyists. Brother Yetzer has found that the number of errors on the website makes it an unreliable witness for its so-called purpose – for those who do not read Greek to “know for [themselves] what these differences are” and so that they do not “have to take someone else’s word for it.”

To my way of thinking there is an underlying and unspoken purpose that aligns with Mark Ward’s ongoing effort of praising the King James Bible while trying to get people to convert to newer translations.

The creator hopes his readers will conclude that they should change from using the KJV and instead use a modern translation. To lead to this conclusion, the site attempts to show (1) that there is not much difference between the texts behind the KJV and modern translations so that there will not be much actual change, and (2) that there is enough difference between the texts behind the KJV and modern translations that folks should change to a modern translation.

When Mark Ward first told me about this site, I thought it sounded like a very good idea that could be widely useful in the Bible versions debates. Now, even if I were not aware of the problems Christopher Yetzer has found (some of which I have inspected and seen myself), the site’s endorsement by Daniel Wallace and Peter Gurry, eager advocates of the Critical Text and ardent opponents of the Traditional Text, is enough to give me pause. “Take my word for it,” if you use this site, you will still be taking someone else’s word for it.


Note: I do not mean the site cannot be useful to some folks. However, with its mistakes, it is not and cannot be useful to those for whom it is supposedly designed.

Friday, May 10, 2024

King James Bible and Masons

Q. Did Sir Francis Bacon, a Freemason and a Rosicrucian, edit the King James Bible before it was released to the public? Why does the original 1611 KJV have Masonic handshakes in its artwork? Why is the KJV the Freemason’s Bible of choice?

A. The last question is answered simply. This is mainly because the King James Bible has been the Bible of choice for most English-speaking peoples for around 400 years. The second answer is rather simple as well, There is nothing in the 1611 Robert Barker artwork in the King James Bible that is distinctly Masonic. Handshakes and other symbols existed in print work before, beyond, outside, and apart from Masonry. The first question is answered in the negative. While there seems to be an effort of some Baconians to suggest otherwise, there is ample evidence about the original of the King James translation to reliably show that Sir Francis Bacon was not involved in translating, editing, or printing the new Bible translation of 1611. Whether Bacon was a Freemason or a Rosicrucian is questionable, but regardless, he did not edit the King James Bible before it was published.

These are persistent myths paddled about in writing, orally, and electronically, but myths they are. Myths (and conspiracy theories) about the King James Bible are often spread by anti-KJVOists. They should be dismissed as calculated but erroneous attempts aimed at tarnishing the status of the King James Bible. On the other hand, it may be that the Masonic claims, when made by Masons, intend to enhance the image of Masonry by associating the fraternity with the King James Bible. It is best to ignore ahistorical claims.

There are some who say that King James I himself was a Mason. However, the document produced to make and prove the claim did not even exist until long after his death. Most historians do not find the document or the claim credible. Whether or not King James was a Mason, that would not make the King James Bible a Masonic Bible. Neither does its use by Masons, Methodists, Mormons, and More make it their Bible. (What Masons think about James might help influence their using the King James translation in their lodges, but it does not go beyond that.) 

The King James translation stands on its on merit, aloof from all those who recommend or reject it, prefer it, read it, and quote it, or disown and complain about it.

Tuesday, April 09, 2024

The order of Philippians 1:16-17

King James Bible:
15 Some indeed preach Christ even of envy and strife; and some also of good will: 16 the one preach Christ of contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: 17 but the other of love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. 18 What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in pretence, or in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

English Standard Version:
15 Some indeed preach Christ from envy and rivalry, but others from good will. 16 The latter do it out of love, knowing that I am put here for the defense of the gospel. 17 The former proclaim Christ out of selfish ambition, not sincerely but thinking to afflict me in my imprisonment. 18 What then? Only that in every way, whether in pretense or in truth, Christ is proclaimed, and in that I rejoice.

Q. Why does the English Standard Version (ESV) reverse the order of verses 16 and 17 in Philippians chapter 1?

A. The ESV (as well as most modern translations) is following the NA-UBS (CT) texts, which flip-flop the order of verses 16-17 from what is found in the Received Text. The CT follows Codex Vaticanus, while the RT order agrees with the majority of extant texts. 

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν οὐχ ἁγνῶς οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου

17 οἱ δε ἐξ ἀγάπης εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι 

↑ Received Text

versus

↓ Critical Text

15 τινὲς μὲν καὶ διὰ φθόνον καὶ ἔριν, τινὲς δὲ καὶ δι᾽ εὐδοκίαν τὸν χριστὸν κηρύσσουσιν.

16 οἱ μὲν ἐξ ἀγάπης, εἰδότες ὅτι εἰς ἀπολογίαν τοῦ εὐαγγελίου κεῖμαι,

17 οἱ δὲ ἐξ ἐριθείας τὸν Χριστὸν καταγγέλλουσιν, οὐχ ἁγνῶς, οἰόμενοι θλῖψιν ἐγείρειν τοῖς δεσμοῖς μου.

Here is an example of a defense of the CT/Vaticanus reading from the Contending for the Faith commentary (Charles Baily, editor). “The King James Version follows the Received Text in reversing the order of verses 16 and 17. This change seems to have been made to conform the text to the order of the two classes of preachers mentioned in verse 15; but the change is not supported by the best textual witness, and it is not followed in most translations. The authentic text has a chiastic (crisscross) order; that is, verse 16 discusses what is mentioned in verse 15b, and verse 17 refers to the content of verse 15a (Loh and Nida 23-24).”

How it appears in Vaticanus

In contrast, the Received Text makes more sense. It follows through with the same order of sense and argument in verse 15, then verses 16-17, and then verse 18. Some indeed preach Christ even of (a) envy and strife; and some also of (b) good will: the one preach Christ of (a) contention, not sincerely, supposing to add affliction to my bonds: but the other of (b) love, knowing that I am set for the defence of the gospel. What then? notwithstanding, every way, whether in (a) pretence, or (b) in truth, Christ is preached; and I therein do rejoice, yea, and will rejoice.

The Contending for the Faith commentary’s argument rests on accepting the Vaticanus reading, and making an argument to explain it. My argument is based on accepting the majority reading as found in the Received Text, and making an argument based on that. While I believe the TR/KJV reading is correct, I don’t, however, suppose that Paul’s sentence order alone makes so strong of a case to prefer one reading over the other. Other factors should be included, such as the majority of textual evidence, and faith in God’s providential preservation of his word (versus the modern reconstruction of it from variant choices of corrupted manuscripts).

Tuesday, February 27, 2024

En-sample and Ex-sample

Q. What are the meanings of “ensample” and “example” in the King James Bible? Are they the same, or different?

A. First, let us consider a little background behind this question.

In the video “Do We Need a Standard English Bible” (which was mentioned in another post), Mark Ward brought up an illustration given at the West Coast Baptist College Leadership Conference, of words in the King James Bible with nuances that need to be kept. One set of these were “ensample” and “example,” positing nuance of meaning derived from their prefixes – inside from “en” and outside from “ex”.

I looked for and at historical information about this argument. Ward claimed he had not read a King James defender who made these arguments, and thought perhaps the speaker was just guessing based on the role of English prefixes. Whether or not he is aware of them, these same types of presentations of these two words predate this speaker from 2023. A quick Google search will dispel any theory that this is new to Lloyd Read (the speaker he is critiquing). It is not.

Perhaps we might initially point out that Mark Ward should be aware of this discussion. Ward claims to have read The King James Bible in America by Bryan Ross (2019), and Ross calls attention to this. He has an entire chapter or words of this nature – alway/always, throughly/thoroughly, etc. Not only does he have a chapter on the phenomenon, but he has 15 pages on ensample/example alone! See pages 44-58 of this book. He called specific attention to Matthew Verschuur’s 2009 book Glistering Words, in which Verschuur discusses “ensample” and “example” 14 years before Lloyd Read brought it up. Regarding the differences, Bryan Ross concluded, “It is high time that we King James Bible Believers cease manufacturing ‘discriminated’ differences in meaning between words, which don’t exist, and accept the fact that there are different ways of saying the same thing. Our beloved translators knew this and translated accordingly; it’s time for us to recognize it as well” (pp. 57-58).

When is the first use or earliest record of distinguishing “ensample” and “example” rather than just seeing them as synonyms?

Some history.

In 2003 Gail Riplinger hints at a distinction in her book In Awe of Thy Word but does not spell it out as clearly as later writings by others.

“The brevity of the KJV translators extends even to the letters. The KJV uses the shorter word ‘example’ (7 letters), but retains the longer word ensample (8 letters) because it contains the built-in definition (sample). The so-called archaic word may be the only word that contains the definition built inside the word. For that reason it must be retained. In 1 Cor. 10:6 the KJV translators updated the word ‘ensamples’ to ‘examples.’ They did not change it in verse 11 because the word ‘ensamples’ contains the built-in definition, ‘sample.’”

On September 12, 2004 Blackstone Valley Baptist Church made a blog post “Changes In Your King James Bible,” in which they referenced American Bible publishers changing words such as “ensample” to “example.” They did not go into detail about those words. In February 2008 The Glory Land web site (E. Morales, administrator) published an updated version of this which included this comment:
Gods Word Uses Both “Alway” And “Always”, “Ensample” And “Example” And Other Pairs Of Similar Words. A Thorough Study Would Show That, Though Similar, These Words Each Have A Slightly Different Meaning As God Intended Them To Have.
Yes, always different.

Perhaps there are earlier examples I have not found, but there seems to be at least 20 years of discussions that make a distinction between ensample and example. These first are followed by:
Verschuur makes the distinction this way: “An ‘example’ is an outward sample, while an ‘ensample’ is one that can be internalised through specific personal knowledge of the object looked at.” Glistering Truths, p. 18

“Surely any ordinary person can see that ‘en’ on the front of a word means something to do with ‘in’. For example, without getting all complicated and just keeping it basic, an entrance is the way in. In the same way ‘ex’ on the front of a word means something to do with ‘out’. For example, an exit is the way out.

“The word ‘ensamples’ has to do with that which reflects within the group referred to; the Israelites. The word ‘examples’ has to do with that which radiates to outside of the group where it took place.” Scriptural View blog administrator 2011

“If we dissect these terms, we can see—at least in ‘ensample’—the stem ‘sample.’ The two prefixes are ‘en–‘ (‘in’) and ‘ex–‘ (‘out’). Just with these few observations, we see a sample in and a sample out. A distinction is thus obvious: there are differences in relationships between nouns.” Shawn Brasseaux

“…ensample always and only refers to man’s characteristic and behavior. Ensample never applies to an inanimate product. Example, on the other hand, may apply to both personal or (and as typically used), general products and processes (not personal). …in conclusion, when the word ensample(s) is used, look for a pattern of personal behavior and conduct, be it good or bad. A subtle difference in spelling cues the reader about the context.” Paul Scott

This distinction is primarily made by modern Christian authors who support the King James Bible. However, I found one secular modern source distinguishing the two: “Ensample vs Example: Differences And Uses For Each One,” by Shawn Manaher, the founder and CEO of “The Content Authority” (a content provider with a pool of writers). So writing is supposed to be their thing. Whether his view is influenced by a religious and/or King James background, I do not know.
“Ensample is a term that is used to refer to a typical or representative example of something. It is a model or pattern that serves as a guide for others to follow.”

“After exploring the differences between ensample and example, it is clear that these two words are not interchangeable. While they both refer to something that serves as a model or illustration, ensample is specifically used in a moral or religious context, while example has a broader usage in everyday language.”
No, not exclusively.

Though the germ of the idea might be traced back to Gail Riplinger, her definitions in the 2018 book The Dictionary Inside the King James Bible: Line Upon Line, 2000 Words Defined suggest reservations about applying wholesale differences between ensample and example.
“...such a difference between example and ensample is not wholesale...Could the ‘en’ mean ‘in’, as in internal and the ‘ex’ mean external, as in things or outside? Sometimes, perhaps...However, such distinctions between the words ‘example’ and ‘ensample’ are not wholesale, For example, both example and ensample refer to ‘things’ in 1 Cor 10:6, 11.”
Here are some others:

In an article titled “Types of Spiritual Things” in the Primitive Baptist periodical Signs of the Times, the author (presumably the editor, F. A. Chick) says “There is no difference of meaning between ‘ensample’ and ‘example’…” (March 15, 1910, p. 182)

Is 17th-Century British English Holy? by David Cloud, August 2010.
The only difference between “ensample” and “example” is that one is 17th-century spelling and the other is 20th-century. The words are the same.
I see no real difference in the meaning. If you go back and compare previous English bibles you will see that both spellings were acceptable English, and where one English translation uses “example” another has “ensample”, and vice versa.

The KJB in America: Ensample & Example by Bryan C. Ross, December 2020.
In this book, Ross writes: “The synonymous nature of ‘ensample’ and ‘example’ is further confirmed by a consideration of how the King James translators handled these words when doing their work.” (p. 48)
Dictionaries and concordances.

1622—Clement Cotton. The Christians Concordance, Containing the Most Materiall Words in the New Testament intriguingly and curiously gives 14 verses under the word ensample: Matt. 1:19; John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 4:12; Titus 2:7; 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7. (Clement Cotton wrote a Dedicatory to the First English Edition of 1605 of Calvin’s Commentary on Hebrews.)

1658—Edward Phillips’ The New World of Words originally published in 1658 contains this entry for the word “ensample”: “an Example, Model, or Pattern.” And for “example”: “a Pattern, Model, or Copy…”

1721—Noah Bailey’s An Universal Etymological English Dictionary from 1721 defines “ensample” as “example or pattern.” An example: “A Copy, Pattern, or Model.”

1828—Noah Webster’s American Dictionary of the English Language from 1828 defines “ensample” as follows: noun [Latin exemplum.] An example; a pattern or model for imitation. Being ensamples to the flock. 1 Peter 5:3.

Previous English Bibles, Geneva and Bishops.

Geneva 1560 Matt. 1:19 (example); John 13:15 (example); rest are ensample: 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 4:12; Titus 2:7; Heb. 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7.

1599 Geneva: Example: Matt. 1:19; John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Peter 2:21; Jude 7; rest are ensample: 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16; 4:12; 2 Pet. 2:6.

Bishops 1568 Matt. 1:19 (example); rest are ensample (exceptions in parentheses) John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16 (example); 4:12 (pattern); Titus 2:7 (pattern); Heb. 4:11; 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7.

Bishops 1602 Matt. 1:19 (example); rest are ensample (exceptions in parentheses) John 13:15; 1 Cor. 10:6, 11; Phil. 3:17; 1 Thess. 1:7; 2 Thess. 3:9; 1 Tim. 1:16 (example); 4:12 (pattern); Titus 2:7 (pattern); Heb. 4:11 (example); 1 Pet. 2:21; 5:3; 2 Pet. 2:6; Jude 7.

Other miscellaneous considerations.

The words “ensample” and “example” were used interchangeably in sermon/lesson proclaimed by Henry Airay – sometime before his death in 1616, and printed in 1618, only a few years after the release of the new English translation in 1611. See pages 789-793 in Lecture LXVII (Lectures on the Whole Epistle of St. Paul to the Philippians, London: Edward Griffin, 1618)

King James marginal notes in 1 Corinthians.

  • 1 Corinthians 10:11 ensamples || Or, Types
  • 1 Corinthians 10:6 our examples † Or, our figures

The verses themselves.

“Ensample” is found in 6 verses in the King James Bible. They are (with Greek word following):

  • 1 Corinthians 10:11 τυπος

Now all these things happened unto them for ensamples: and they are written for our admonition, upon whom the ends of the world are come.

  • Philippians 3:17 τυπος

Brethren, be followers together of me, and mark them which walk so as ye have us for an ensample.

  • 1 Thessalonians 1:7 τυπος

so that ye were ensamples to all that believe in Macedonia and Achaia.

  • 2 Thessalonians 3:9 τυπος

not because we have not power, but to make ourselves an ensample unto you to follow us.

  • 1 Peter 5:3 τυπος

neither as being lords over God’s heritage, but being ensamples to the flock.

  • 2 Peter 2:6 υποδειγμα

and turning the cities of Sodom and Gomorrha into ashes condemned them with an overthrow, making them an ensample unto those that after should live ungodly;

“Example” is found in 9 verses in the King James Bible. They are (with Greek word following):

  • Matthew 1:19 παραδειγματισαι

Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a publick example, was minded to put her away privily.

  • John 13:15 υποδειγμα

For I have given you an example, that ye should do as I have done to you.

  • 1 Corinthians 10:6 τυπος 

Now these things were our examples, to the intent we should not lust after evil things, as they also lusted.

  • 1 Timothy 4:12 τυπος

Let no man despise thy youth; but be thou an example of the believers, in word, in conversation, in charity, in spirit, in faith, in purity.

  • Hebrews 4:11 υποδειγμα

Let us labour therefore to enter into that rest, lest any man fall after the same example of unbelief.

  • Hebrews 8:5 υποδειγμα

who serve unto the example and shadow of heavenly things, as Moses was admonished of God when he was about to make the tabernacle: for, See, saith he, that thou make all things according to the pattern shewed to thee in the mount.

  • James 5:10 υποδειγμα

Take, my brethren, the prophets, who have spoken in the name of the Lord, for an example of suffering affliction, and of patience.

  • 1 Peter 2:21 υπογραμμος

For even hereunto were ye called: because Christ also suffered for us, leaving us an example, that ye should follow his steps:

  • Jude 1:7 δειγμα

Even as Sodom and Gomorrha, and the cities about them in like manner, giving themselves over to fornication, and going after strange flesh, are set forth for an example, suffering the vengeance of eternal fire.

Related:

  • 1 Timothy 1:16 pattern, υποτυπωσις
  • Titus 2:7 pattern, τυπος
  • Hebrews 8:5 pattern, τυπος
  • Hebrews 9:23 patterns, υποδειγμα

Concluding thoughts.

In conclusion, I will be brief. There is little support for churches, preachers, commentators, etc. of earlier times making a fine distinction between “ensample” and “example.”

First, this is an important matter which might affect how one interprets any given Bible verses containing these words. Let each verse be interpreted on its own without carrying a preconceived idea to the verse. 

I neither doubt nor question the sincerity of those who think ensample and example are similar words with different connotations. However, we see that they are making the distinction based on their own interpretations of the texts. They find the verses, and go through them with a fine-toothed comb looking for similarities and differences. This results in the grid taken to the Scriptures being placed above the Scriptures themselves. On the other hand, the King James Bible itself denotes the words as synonyms - compare 2 Peter 2:6 and Jude 1:7. The condemned cities are an ensample, an example. This should settle the question.

This does not mean that slightly different connotations might be found in various verses using “ensample” and “example.” But, if so, let us find this in the verse itself, and not bring it with us to the verse to put it there.

Tuesday, January 30, 2024

Jonah and the Whale

Q. Was Jonah swallowed by a whale or a fish?

A. Both. It is a whale (Matthew 12:40, κήτος) and a fish (Jonah 1:17, דָג). The Old Testament book says God prepared a fish to swallow Jonah and Jesus said that fish was a whale. Yet scientists say the whale is not a fish; it is a mammal, and the Bible is wrong. Who shall we believe? Believe God. We should look the scientist and skeptic in the eye and say, “God is sovereign.” God is the Sovereign of the universe and the Creator of all things. He is under no obligation to categorize fish and whales by some modern classifications or man-made distinction that some modern scientists have chosen. God is the creator of the whale. He can (and does) call it what he wants.

When puny humans can place a man inside a whale and bring him out alive after three days and three nights, maybe we will have earned some right to call him what we wish against what God says. Of course, we can’t, and won’t, and don’t! This issue might become a complicated debate for some, but let us reserve the debate over technicalities to within “the family.” There is no reason for Christians to run from this issue like a frightened schoolchild. We should and must stand for the Bible, truth against falsehood.

In modern English whale may mean (scientifically) any of various large marine mammals of the order Cetacea, or (popularly) any large sea creature or something that is impressive in size. The word comes from the Old English hwæl, Old Saxon hwal, apparently going back to the German hwal/wal, and Latin squalus (a kind of large sea fish).

  • Now the Lord had prepared a great fish to swallow up Jonah. And Jonah was in the belly of the fish three days and three nights. (KJV, Jonah 1:17)

The Old Testament Hebrew is gadowl (גָּדֹ֔ול) dag (דָּ֣ג), meaning “great fish.”

  • for as Jonas was three days and three nights in the whale’s belly; so shall the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (KJV, Matthew 12:40)

The Greek used in the New Testament is ketos (κητος). Divry’s Modern English-Greek and Greek-English Dictionary (1974), is just a Greek/English dictionary. It has nothing directly to do with the Bible (i.e., it is a Greek language dictionary, not a Bible dictionary). If you look up the Greek word ketos, it has “whale.” If you look up the English word whale, it has “ketos.”

Notice also that the Greek LXX of the Old Testament translates (דָּג גָּדֹול) as κήτει μεγάλῳ and (הַדָּג) as κήτους – which Lancelot Brenton translates into English as great whale and whale (1:17 in the KJV, is 2:1 in LXX).

καὶ προσέταξεν κύριος κήτει μεγάλῳ καταπιεῖν τὸν Ιωναν καὶ ἦν Ιωνας ἐν τῇ κοιλίᾳ τοῦ κήτους τρεῖς ἡμέρας καὶ τρεῖς νύκτας

Now the Lord had commanded a great whale to swallow up Jonas: and Jonas was in the belly of the whale three days and three nights.

As late as 1952, the new Revised Standard Version still used the word “whale.”

  • For as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the whale, so will the Son of man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. (RSV, Matthew 12:40)

The modern pressure to be “scientific” has called forth a number of substitutes: great fish (ESV, NKJV, TLB), huge fish (CSB, LEB, NET, NIV), sea creature (ISV), sea monster (AMP, EXB, LSB, NASB, NRSV), and possibly others. I do not see these as wrong, in the sense that, in biblical terms the whale is a great or huge fish, and a sea creature. I see them as compromising, jellyfish translations (gelatinous members of the subphylum Medusozoa, a major part of the phylum Cnidaria), that bow to science when science should instead bow to God.

As if it matters, we notice that some people who attack the King James Bible in particular or the Bible in general claim that scientific terminology labeling whales as mammals predates the 1611 translation of the Bible. So the translators should have had their fingers in the wind, and not used the word “whale” (in their opinion). However, this assertion appears to be chronologically false. The information that I have found indicates that this system (re whales) dates to 1758 (of course, there were earlier folks developing taxonomic ideas, such as the Bauhin brothers, botanists). It was in the 1758 10th edition of Systema Naturae that Carl Linnaeus, a Swedish biologist and taxonomist, classified cetaceans as mammals rather than fish. The taxonomic system of Linnaeus formed the basis of modern whale classification. That does not matter in terms of biblical truth, but the timing nevertheless seems to be a false claim that deserves debunking. Regardless, Bible translators are not beholden to modern classifications as sources for translation.

As far as a whale or fish swallowing Jonah, if we believe in a sovereign God who can do all things, and we believe that fish was “prepared by God” – that should remove all difficulties believing the story. God made a creature that, due to his preparation, was able to swallow an adult human. It was a miracle!

As far as a whale being a fish, if we believe God made all things, we allow him to call those things whatsoever he will – regardless of what anyone else decides to call them. God is the eternal sovereign Creator.

As William Jennings Bryan said to Clarence Darrow, “If the Bible said so…”


Note: I do not have a problem with the principle of scientific classifications. I myself have engaged in a good bit of religious taxonomy – working on how to classify Baptists within their denominational landscapes. It has a place in the field of knowledge, as long as it doesn’t overstep its bounds and start overriding what a biblical classification of a church is. I recognize it is man-made, but it can help make sense out of who we are as Baptists. So with scientific classifications of plants and animals. They are derived to help us understand the world around us. Let it do that, as long as it doesn’t overstep its bounds and start overriding what the Bible says. Search the scriptures, whether these things are so. Let God be true, but every man a liar.

Tuesday, January 23, 2024

Is the Holy Spirit a Thing?

Q. In the King James Bible in Romans 8:16 and 8:26, the Holy Spirit is called an “it.” Is not that translation incorrect?

Romans 8:16 - The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God:

Romans 8:26 - Likewise the Spirit also helpeth our infirmities: for we know not what we should pray for as we ought: but the Spirit itself maketh intercession for us with groanings which cannot be uttered.

A. No, it is not incorrect. It seems to be something latched on to by KJV Detractors as some kind of major criticism of the flaws in the King James Bible. KJV-Only opponent Doug Kutilek is representative of the clamour (and perhaps the primary originator?).

“Any honest evaluation of the King James Version leads to the conclusion that it has numerous defects as a translation, some major, most minor. But of these defects, among the most serious, quite probably the worst of the lot, is its occasional use of the English pronoun ‘it’ to refer to the Holy Spirit. ... I will plainly state my opinion on the matter: I think that here the KJV comes dangerously close to blasphemy, if it does not in fact actually wander into it.” (from his website KJVOnly.org, which is not currently working, 12/14/2023)

This is a harsh “take down” of the King James Bible and its translators. To Kutilek, this is a serious error (possibly the worst in the KJV), and is “dangerously close” or “in fact” blasphemy! He covers all bases by implying that anyone who does not agree with him has not made an “honest evaluation” of the King James Version.

In the long run, Kutilek succeeds in exposing his own ignorance of the Greek language, the English language, and English Bible translations in general. His complaint and criticism focus on four verses: John 1:32; Romans 8:16, 8:26, and 1 Peter 1:11.

I will mainly focus on the passages in Romans, with some mention of 1 Peter 1:11. Even disregarding the explanations I will give below, his including John 1:32 is worse than a quibble. The antecedent of “it” in that passage is “dove.” Of course, the Spirit is descending like a dove, but “it” – the Spirit in the form of the dove – abode upon him.[i] 

Misunderstanding the Greek.

Every Greek word has a distinct gender – masculine, feminine, or neuter. The Greek word for spirit (πνεῦμα) is designated as a neuter noun. The Greek pronoun αὐτὸ is also neuter. The phrase “the Spirit itself” is an accurate translation of the Greek “auto to pneuma” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα). The pronoun “auto” is correctly translated “it” or “itself.” So, let us ask ourselves? Do we believe God inspired the words of the Bible – the very words that Paul wrote in Romans 8:16 and 26? If you claim the King James translators were wrong to use a neuter or genderless pronoun (itself) to refer to a neuter noun (Spirit), will you also, with Doug Kutilek, have a problem with God using a neuter pronoun (αὐτὸ) to refer to a neuter noun (πνεῦμα)?? What a gaggle of gibberish! Let God be true, but every man a liar.

These two verses use a neuter pronoun in reference to the Spirit. “Himself” is not incorrect in the sense of identification. Nevertheless, adding “himself” rather than “itself” is a case of the translators making a minor interpretation of what Paul wrote rather than simply translating what he wrote.[ii]  

1 Peter 1:11 searching what, or what manner of time the Spirit of Christ which was in them did signify, when it testified beforehand the sufferings of Christ, and the glory that should follow.

“it testified beforehand” is a translation of προμαρτυρόμενον, which is neuter in gender, so “it” is the proper pronoun (i.e., same kind of pronoun in English fitting the Greek).

Misunderstanding the English.

The quibbles on these three verses proceed from the assumption that “it” and “itself” only refer to inanimate objects, things. However, dictionaries disagree with this unsustained assessment. Dictionary.com gives the following:

“it” is a pronoun “used to represent an inanimate thing understood, previously mentioned, about to be mentioned, or present in the immediate context” and/or “used to represent a person or animal understood, previously mentioned, or about to be mentioned whose gender is unknown or disregarded.”

“itself” is a pronoun, “an emphatic appositive or a reflexive form of it.”

That’s right, it can refer to a person! The entire quibble is that using “it” or “itself” means the Holy Spirit is not a person. Not so.

KJV not the only one.

Some people say that only the King James Bible does this. That is not correct, though the majority of modern translations do have himself rather than itself. Using the two initial verses mentioned, at least the following English translations have “itself” in Romans 8:16, 26.

Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) Darby Translation, 1602 Bishops, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Testament for Everyone.

Romans 8:26 “the Spirit itself” (αὐτὸ τὸ πνεῦμα) Coverdale, Darby Translation, 1560 Geneva, 1599 Geneva, 1602 Bishops, Jubilee Bible 2000, New American Bible (Revised Edition), New Testament for Everyone.

Additionally, though other Bibles may not have “itself” or “it” in these places, I would urge complainers, “Physician, heal thyself.” Check your own Bibles, whichever one you use regularly, and find that they also use neutral pronouns to refer to people.[iii] Just weights and measures, as anti-KJVO detractor Rick Norris always repeats. I guess he forgot to mention it to his friend Doug Kutilek.

Conclusion.

Sincere inquirers who want to know about the use of “it” in reference to the Holy Spirit can be assured there is nothing wrong, nefarious, or blasphemous in the King James Bible translations of John 1:32, Romans 8:16, 8:26, and 1 Peter 1:11.[iv] Those who persist in quibbling complaints on these verses expose the petty nature of their challenges to find anything they can to use against the King James Bible and the King James Onlyist. They say they are not against the King James Bible, but these charges about the translation itself prove otherwise.

[i] John 1:32 And John bare record, saying, I saw the Spirit descending from heaven like a dove, and it abode upon him. Even Dan Wallace’s NET Bible has “…and it remained on him.”
[ii] Early English versions often used “same Spirit” or “selfsame Spirit,” which carries the same connotation.
[iii] For example, whatever is born of God in 1 John 5:4 is neuter. Many Bibles translate this as “whatsoever,” “whatever,” or “everything.” including AMP, ASV, CJB, DLNT, DRA, HCSB, KJV, LSB, NASB1995, NKJV, NRSV, NTE, OJB, RSV, WEB, WYC. Are you born of God? Are you a thing or a person? Let God use whatsoever word he will, and let every man bow before him.
[iv] If anything, it is Doug Kutilek who nears blasphemy. By his diatribe against the King James Bible for using a neuter pronoun to translate a neuter pronoun inspired by God, he inadvertently crosses the line into criticizing the words chosen by God in the original language.