Part of the reason I posted this here is because this man sent me the wrong email address, so I could not write him back. I figured this would also be good for all of you to see. This was sent to me almost two years ago, and I did not respond to it until now, after I finished my book on the King James Bible. At the end of the letter, he said he wasn't looking for a response, so I didn't bother to address it until I was done with my book; however, the email address he gave me doesn't exist.
DANIEL FROM ILLINOIS
There were more drastic changes than the stuff you mentioned in your article. These drastic changes change doctrine.
Here are some examples of what I am talking about.
1611 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
1769 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”
1611 Song of Solomon 2:7
“I charge you, O ye daughters of Ierusalem, by the Roes, and by the hindes of the field, that ye stirre not vp, nor awake my loue, till she please.”
1769 Song of Solomon 2:7
“I charge you, O ye daughters of Jerusalem, by the roes, and by the hinds of the field, that ye stir not up, nor awake my love, till he please.”
1611 Job 39:30
“Her yong ones also suck vp blood: and where the slaine are, there is he.”
1769 Job 39:30
“Her young ones also suck up blood: and where the slain are, there is she.”
The 1611 translators knew the original languages fluently while Blaney did not know any Hebrew and Greek during the revision.
I'm not trying to get a reaction out of you and if you choose to brush this off as heresy then go ahead. I can't force you to change your mind nor am I trying to to. I'm just trying to provide you with information. As always it's best to do your own research (which you already do that anyway). Don't worry I'm not offended by you.
Here's a video that might help go along with this.
https://youtu.be/bcopIyZ7nZE
Thanks for taking the time to read this email and don't worry about responding to me. You don't have to respond if you don't want to. A response is not the point nor intention for this email.
Thanks for sending this to me. I know it's been a while, but I have kept your email in my inbox for the past couple of years because I wanted to address it eventually. I was waiting for the time I would work on turning my article on the KJB into a full-length book, which I am close to finishing a first draft. I came back to this email to see if there is anything in it that I wanted to address in my book, and what I discovered was a lot of bad arguments. I do not say that to upset you, but the fact is that the man in the video you sent me was not making complete arguments for what he was saying; he was only making partial arguments and some of what he was saying was just flat-out wrong.
For example, he argued that John 8:44 says that, concerning the Devil, "
there is no truth in him," and he instead interpreted that to mean that "
the Devil cannot say anything that is true," and those are completely different concepts. Just because the Devil is the father of lies, does not mean he cannot speak something that is true, but if he says something that is true, it is not from any genuineness of heart because he had fallen from the truth and "
abode not in it." Therefore, the Devil uses the truth for the purpose of deceit, however, the video's author was using his faulty interpretation to say that his argument about differences in the editions of the KJB were valid, when they had no standing.
For example, in Gen 3:1:
Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said unto the woman, Yea, hath God said, Ye shall not eat of every tree of the garden?What Satan said there was true, and Eve verified that. He then proceeds to use that to deceive her, but that statement was true; God did say that. There was a lot of that type of fallacious argument that I saw in that man's video you sent me (but I don't have time to go through all of them right now; I just wanted to give you an example), and I'm assuming that you didn't notice those things, otherwise, it is unlikely you would have recommended it to me.
I'm not going to go through all the Scriptures you listed out (again, for the sake of time), but let's address one of them so I can show you the problem with what you sent me. This was concerning to me only because you sent me that email, and for the past couple of years, I was a little worried that maybe there were some errors in the KJB I'm using, but thankfully, God has taught me over the years to read the context for myself to gain understanding, and that has shown me that what I'm reading is correct.
First, I'll quote you:
1611 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vaile that thou hast vpon thee, and holde it. And when she helde it, he measured sixe measures of barley, and laide it on her: and he went into the citie.”
1769 Ruth 3:15
“Also he said, Bring the vail that thou hast upon thee, and hold it. And when she held it, he measured six measures of barley, and laid it on her: and she went into the city.”I am presuming (since you didn't take the time to highlight what you wanted me to address) that your objection is the difference between "he" and "she" in the text. This is one of the printing press errors that was corrected. Keep in mind that the printing press errors were not fully taken care of until the mid-18th century, because only 72% of the errors had been corrected by 1638.
In fact, I would argue that both are correct (which is why I suspect that it took so long for this error to be discovered), but the word 'she' is more accurate to the context because it was about Ruth. Both Ruth and Boaz went TOGETHER into the city. We already know that Boaz went to the city because you can see when you go on to the next chapter:
Then went Boaz up to the gate, and sat him down there: and, behold, the kinsman of whom Boaz spake came by; unto whom he said, Ho, such a one! turn aside, sit down here. And he turned aside, and sat down.
-Ruth 4:1Boaz was already going to the city, but the word 'she' then tells us that Ruth went with him, which makes sense based on the promises that he made to her in chapter 3.
This is why I would encourage you to keep studying on this subject, but remember to always read the context of the chapter, and make sure you understand it fully. I have, many times in the past, led others astray because I believed something someone told me in a video, and I didn't fully research it, and I have regretted that many times. Although I still make foolish mistakes, I have worked hard to try and remedy that about myself for the sake of Christ, and I hope you will also dedicate yourself to doing thorough research for Him too.
Thanks for your input. Have a great day.
END OF DISCUSSION
I addressed that point in my book as well. There will always be someone who will try to turn us away from the King James Bible, and in this instance, it wasn't someone who hated the KJB. Rather, I think this is a man who uses the KJB regularly and is sincere, but he has been led astray by some people claiming to have good intentions, while expressing bad arguments.Free to Read Book:Why Christians Should Study The King James Bible
