The Rudimentary Factor Underlying Infallibility Alleged "Errors" In The A.V. 1611 By: Jeffrey D. Nachimson The continuing saga which shadows the arena of the Bible-Believing Christian's daily walk upon this earth, is this never-ending phenomenon as to whether or not the Book that he holds in his hands is indeed infallible and subsequently free from error. Well into the second half of the year 2004, "Christian" bookstores and web-pages are full of articles and slander that range anywhere from, "King James murdered born-again Christians," to "The King James Bible has had over 100,000 changes since 1611." These dung-heaps are designed to get the faithful A.V. 1611 Believer to doubt the veracity of his preserved text, in order to convince him to trade that faith in for more "refined sensibilities" in modern, professing "Christian" Scholarship. To help assist in the final destruction of the Bible-Believer's faith in the A.V. text, several offensive mechanisms are employed by your average Alexandrian clone to bring this feat to a plateau. For example, one of the first things a Bible-Believer might hear is that the A.V. 1611 comes from inferior manuscripts; that, as modern science and philosophy, the amount of knowledge ascertained and thereby perpetuated concerning the development of the New Testament text has increased drastically since the time of the A.V. translators. This foundation is laid when the unsuspecting reader is told that the A.V. 1611 is essentially a Roman Catholic Bible, because the first published Greek text editor was a Roman Catholic named Desiderius Erasmus. The seed of doubt is further implanted when the reader is informed next, that Mr. Erasmus was not only a Roman Catholic, but a "Humanist" as well. After this, they are given the impression that Erasmus was a Roman Catholic "humanist," the textual wolves move on to tell the inquiring mind the lack of manuscripts that Erasmus had at his disposal to construct a proper Greek text. Consequently, if the underlying Greek text of the King James Bible (developed further in later editions by Robert Stephanus and Calvin's disciple, Theodore Beza) was inferior and came from a Roman Catholic liberal, then how in the world can such a Bible as the A.V. 1611 be "infallible?" However, these types of statements only scratch the surface as the firstfruits of deception to rid the body of Christ of the God-honored English text. We could indulge ourselves into pages upon pages, regurgitating the minute attacks on our beloved English Bible. Some of the favorites on the front lines of attack are, "Wasn't King James a homosexual?" Which edition of the A.V. 1611 are you talking about?" "Where was the word of God before 1611?" "What about the archaic words?" "What about the italicized words?" "Didn't the A.V. fail to translate the Greek article in many places?" "Didn't the A.V. fail to properly render Greek verb tenses as they should be?" In the A.V. 1611 conferences I hold in local churches upon invitation, I go over those questions with the audience and many more as well. But, the question comes up, what does all of this mean? Why all of these petty attacks on one English Bible? What is the RUDIMENT of the whole matter? Well, it is simply this: if the King James Bible can be demonstrated to have an "ERROR" in translation, then the entire premise for translational infallibility is diminished. The entire rigmarole practiced by the "scholarship" community is to convince you that the King James Bible that you hold in your hands, preach and read from, HAS ERRORS, and IS NOT INFALLIBLE! Hence, we hold to the proposition that the A.V. 1611 text is innocent until proven guilty. That is, until some scholastic scum like R.L Hymers can show us definitively that there is an "ERROR" in the A.V. text, then he can keep his "leasing" mouth shut and cease from filling the air with anymore anti-Biblical prevarications! Therefore, in holding to our proposition that our Bible is completely without error, we will examine the claims of the Bible correctors in naming supposed errors in our English Bible and answer such self-conceited individuals accordingly. I. ERROR: REVELATION 22:14 Robert Joyner, pastor of the Community Baptist Church in Newport, NC has this to tell us about "Errors" in the King James Bible: "Revelation 22:14 teaches salvation by works in the KJV. "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life." This is a verse taken from the Latin Vulgate and inserted by Erasmus because he did not have a complete Greek manuscript of the book of Revelation. The KJV translators continued this error. THERE IS NO GREEK MANUSCRIPT IN EXISTENCE THAT HAS THE KJV READING. The NASB says, "Blessed are they who have washed their robes, that they may have right to the tree of life." (Joyner, King James Only?: A Guide to Bible Translations, pg. 16, Emphasis mine)  1) Joyner's first error is assuming that this was one of the verses that Erasmus had supposedly retranslated from Latin (which Hoskier disputed according to Edward Hills). To refute Joyner's statement I quote Dr. Edward Hills:  "The last SIX verses of Codex 1r (Rev. 22:16-21) were lacking, and its text in other places was sometimes hard to distinguish from the commentary of Andreas of Caesarea in which it was embedded. According to almost all scholars, Erasmus endeavored to supply these deficiencies in his manuscript by retranslating the Latin Vulgate into Greek. Hoskier, however, was inclinded to dispute this on the evidence of manuscript 141." (Hills, The King James Version Defended, pg. 202) "Erasmus in 1516 relied mainly on 2, a late fifteenth century miniscule. In his editio princeps Erasmus used also 1 and 1r (for the Apocalypse). Since 1r stopped at Rev. xxii.15 Erasmus retranslated the Latin into Greek for Rev. xxii.16-21, for which he had no Greek manuscript whatever." (Robertson, An Introduction to the Textual Criticism of the New Testament, pg. 96) Sadly, the reader can clearly see the frivolous nature of Joyner's ERROR. The GREEK manuscript used by Erasmus for Revelation in his Greek text DID HAVE Rev. 22:14. The section retranslated from Latin began with verse 16. Robert Joyner was so anxious to prove an error in the King's English, that he lied in the process. Such are the ways of stupid Alexandrian Cultists who fool around with a supernatural book! 2) Just to add a little "insult to injury," I will show you the deficiency level in "Dr." Joyner's study habits. Upon inspection of the Nestle/Aland 27th edition Critical Greek text on pg. 680, the variant reading "poiountes tas entolas autou" in the critical apparatus is supported by the MAJORITY OF ALL EXISTING GREEK MANUSCRIPTS; the Syriac versions, the bohairic versions, and Tertullian with variation (200 A.D.). So, where did he get this idea that "no Greek manuscript in existence has the KJV reading"? On the contrary, only a minority of Greek manuscripts support the reading in the NASB! 3) Coincidentally, about the only thing made in Joyner's statements above that has any validity to it is that, "Revelation 22:14 teaches salvation by works in the KJV." The problem isn't IF the A.V. teaches salvation by works, the question is WHEN does the A.V. 1611 teach salvation by works? In the context of Revelation 22, at least in the beginning of it, the Bible is discussing eternity or a type of it before it starts, after the destruction of the earth and the heavens by fire (II Peter 3). This is what Larkin refers to as a period of 33,000 years in fulfillment of God's promise to Israel in Deuteronomy 7:9 to a "thousand generations," making it a generation of 33 years each. Hence, in conjunction with "the dispensation of the fullness of times" in Ephesians 1:10, this is a period of time of unspecified years (speculated as 33,000 by Clarence Larkin) in which God will gather together in one all things in Christ, both in heaven, in earth, etc. At the climax of this period of time, Jesus Christ will deliver up the kingdom to God, and even subject himself as the Son to the Father, that God may be all in all according to the set-up in I Cor. 15:27-28 (notice this last verse especially). So, if you get nothing else from this, understand that the passage in Revelation 22:14 is in a context containing some pretty heavy doctrine.  The passage says, "Blessed are they that do his commandments, that they may have right to the tree of life, and may enter in through the gates into the city."  Well, the city has to be New Jerusalem, for the old one was destroyed with the first heaven and earth in Revelation 21:1. So, outside of this new city are some folks in the lake of fire according to Rev. 22:15; this would also seem to match the same group in Rev. 21:8. Nevertheless, in both passages, the White throne Judgment has taken place and those on the outskirts of the city are in the lake of fire. However, all of this is trivial. The question is, if YOU are saved by grace through faith apart from works (Eph. 2:8-9; Titus 3:5; Romans 4:5), then who is the passage referring to here in Revelation 22:14?  Comparing scripture with scripture, the first time the tree of life shows up in the Bible is in Gen. 2:9. Consequently, this tree WAS NOT forbidden to be eaten by Adam and Eve. Howbeit this was the tree that Eve confounded with the tree of knowledge of good and evil in Gen. 3:3 (the tree of life was in the midst of the garden, not the other one). As in Revelation 22:14, the condition for partaking of this tree was "keeping his commandments." Adam was told he could FREELY (notice the same word in the context of Revelation 22:17) eat of ANY tree of the garden, except for one. Unfortunately for them, they missed the import. Adam and Eve had the ability to eat off of the tree of life and life forever, but they blew it. You ask, how do you know that tree was for eternal life? Well, look at Genesis 3:22 AFTER Adam and Eve had disobeyed God. "And the Lord God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, AND LIVE FOR EVER:" If they had eaten off of that tree after they had sinned, they would have lived forever as sinners; imagine that!  Now, with that in mind, come back to Revelation 2:7 and notice this tree shows up again: "He that hath an ear, let him hear what the Spirit saith unto the churches; To him that overcometh will I give to eat of the TREE OF LIFE, which is in the midst of the paradise of God." That's the set up we just read about in Revelation 22. Typically, the 7 churches in Revelation 2-3 are given a double application. One, they are recognized as 7 actually local churches in Asia Minor during the time of the Apostle John. Secondly, they are purported as representing the 7 periods of church history prior to the Second coming of Jesus Christ. But, with all of the emphasizing on works in the two chapters (Rev. 2:7;11;17;23;26;3:4;5;12;), there is no doubt that the doctrinal application is to local churches in the Tribulation period (and yes, you'll run into trouble here if you are a local church only advocate and deny the universal body of Christ). Naturally, some of these verses can be explained away with I John 4:4, but you'll have a hard time getting around 2:7; 3:4-5, etc. The entire context of those two chapters is works, works, and having patience to hold out until the end! The end of what? Well, the end of the Tribulation period, where an individual NOT going to hell is conditioned upon him not receiving a mark (Revelation 14:9-10). Another point to consider is that these same Tribulation saints that are in this period of time, on an equivocal basis are said to "...keep the commandments of God, and have the testimony of Jesus Christ." (Rev. 12:17). Again, "...here are they that keep the commandments of God, and the faith of Jesus." (Rev. 14:12). Now, the question is, is that you? Do you get eternal life by eating off of a tree by holding out to the end of the tribulation period? Of course not! You have eteranl life right this minute if you are saved (I John 5:20). What happens if YOU don't "keep the faith of Jesus?" According to II Tim. 2:13, if we believe not, he abides faithful, FOR HE CANNOT DENY HIMSELF. If you are saved right now, you are a member of Jesus Christ's body (I Cor. 12:12-13). The other ERROR manifested by Joyner is this assumption that "wash their robes" is a confession that it is opposite of works. On the contrary, no church age Christian washes their robes for anything. Notice, that according to the holy scriptures, if you are a saved, born-again, child of God at this moment, then you ARE WASHED, not your robes. "...Unto him that loved us, and WASHED US from our sins in his own blood," (Rev. 1:5. Again, "And such were some of you: but ye ARE WASHED. but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God." ( I Cor. 6:11). Now according to the King James Bible, if you want to get your robes washed, then you have to come "out of great tribulation." (Rev. 7:14). I gave the verse from Revelation 3:4-5 that shows that a man in the tribulation can defile his garments and get his name blotted out of the book of life. My question is, is that you? So, who gives a flip if the King James Bible teaches "salvation by works?" Question: How in the world is someone is the millenium going to place faith in a resurrected Messiah when he is visible and right in front of them? (Rev. 1:7; Zechariah 14:16-17; Ezekiel 48:35) How are you going to preach the Gospel of the Grace of God (Acts 20:24) to someone in the Tribulation, when two other Gospels are being preached? (Matthew 24:13-14; Rev. 14:6) According to the apostle Paul, you'd be accursed, right? (Gal. 1:8-9). I guess nobody will be doing too much Gospel preaching in the millenium, according to what that Book says in Jeremiah 31:34. The answer is that they are saved by "keeping his commandments"; faith/works in the Tribulation period; works in the millenium.  POINT: LEAVE REVELATION 22:14 AS IT STANDS IN THE A.V. 1611 AND CHANGE YOUR DOCTRINE TO FIT WHAT THE BOOK SAYS INSTEAD OF VICE-VERSA. 2. ERROR: JOHN 5:44 Elgin Hushbeck, an engineer and apologetic writer, shows us what an engineering degree can do for the text of the King James Bible: " The other type of problem involved poor translations. Translation is a difficult task and humans are not perfect. As a result, no translation the size of the Bible is perfect. While the King James Version is a good translation, it does have a few minor problems. Again here are two examples: John 5:44 and Hebrews 10:23.In John 5:44 the Greek text very clearly reads "...and seek not the honor that comes from the only God." Among other things this is a strong statement of monotheism. Yet for some reason the King James Version translates this as "and seek not the honor that cometh from God only?" Here any reference to monotheism is removed, and it becomes a statement that honor only comes from God. In Hebrews 10:23, the Greek text reads "let us hold fast the profession of our hope." Yet the King James Version translates the Greek word for "hope" as "faith" and reads "let us hold fast the profession of our faith." I have yet to hear of any explanation of either of these translations except that the King James Version translators must have known what they were doing. " (Hushbeck, "King James Version Only" article) In Greek, the passage looks like this: "pos dunasthe humeis pisteusai doxan para allelon lambanontes, kai ten doxan ten para tou monou theou ou zeteite;" (Unfortunately this blog site doesn't have the Greek cursive characters, so you'll have to deal with the transliterated characters) In Greek, you have an idiom called, "The attributive use of the prepositional phrase." As with an attributive adjective, when you have an article before the adjective in front of a noun with or without the article, the adjective gives attribute to the noun. For example, if I gave you in Greek, "ho agathos logos," or "ho agathos ho logos," it would be translated, "the good word." Thus, the adjective attributes to the noun. Also, such is the case with prepositional phrases. Hence, in the verse in John 5:44, the words "ten para tou monou theou" constitute an attributive prepositional phrase. Literally, it would be translated, "that comes from the only God" just as Mr. Hushbeck has asserted. You have an article (ten), a preposition (para), an article (tou), an adjective (monou), and a noun (theou). So, the question comes up, is this a "mistake," or an "ERROR" in the A.V. 1611? The problem with Elgin Hushbeck is that he failed to notice two things: 1) That the context of the verse renders a literal adjectival translation of this passage senseless. 2) That there are other translational possibilities that he didn't bother to look into or inform his readers due to his prejudicial bias against the King's English. Beginning in verse 30 in John 5, Jesus Christ discusses the plethora of witnesses that testify to his ministry and authority. He lists the testimony of John the Baptist (vs. 32-35); his works (vs. 36); the Father (vs. 37); the scriptures (vs. 39); and notice in verse 41 where Jesus Christ states exactly where he DOESN'T GET HIS HONOR FROM! Why the discussion is how to know if something or someone is from God, AND THE HONOR THAT ONLY GOD CAN GIVE! No one in this context bats an eye about monotheism! There isn't an inclination anywhere in 47 verses that one person (including the lost Pharisees) is discussing the necessity of monotheism. For Hushbeck to conjecture that the A.V. rendering doesn't uphold monotheism in the passage because it doesn't translate the prepositional phrase as an adjective, is bordering on the realm of the absurd. The point is where do REAL testimonial witnesses and honor originate? REAL honor comes from God ONLY, not the only God. Nevertheless, Hushbeck's real problem is his ignorance of Greek grammar. Here I shall quote, "A Grammar of New Testament Greek," by James Hope Moulton, Vol. III-Syntax, by Nigel Turner, pg. 225-226:  "There is therefore not surprisingly some confusion of monos with the adv. monon: Mk 6:8- meden ei me rhabdon monon (D monen); Acts 11:19- medeni ei me monon (D monois) Ioudaiois; Heb. 12:26 OT seiso ou monon ten gen, alla kai...; 2 Tim. 4:8; I Jn 5:6- ouk en to hudati monon (B mono). In Jn 5:44 monou is best TAKEN ADVERBIAL; not from him who alone is God, but only from God (Jewish monotheism was unimpeachable; Jesus was referring to their love of human praise), IN SPITE OF THE WORD ORDER. Lk 5:21 adv. monos." It would do the reader good to examine the passage mentioned by Nigel Turner; Luke 5:21. This passage states:  "And the scribes and the Pharisees began to reason, saying, Who is this which speaketh blasphemies? Who can forgive sins, but God alone?" In this passage in Luke you have a similar set-up, where the discussion is centered around something ONLY GOD CAN DO! There was never any question about monotheism! Such are the devious of ways of amateur Bible critics who fool around with Greek New Testaments. It is like a toddler trying to handle a 9mm pistol. Nevertheless, in Greek, the last phrase of Luke 5:21 appear as thus: "... ei me monos ho theos;" - Lit. "Except only God?" Hence the Greek indicative "ei," and the Greek subjunctive particle "me," together form and idiom that means, "except/unless." However, in this case better English is "but." However, the point is, you have the adjective "monos" functioning as an ADVERB just like John 5:44 even those the sentence structure is different. The point is still the same because both contexts are discussing entities that are limited to God's discretion. However, lest there be any doubt as to the authenticity of the claim above for the more idiomatic translation of "monos" adverbially instead of adjectivally, let us employ the usage of Dr. Daniel Wallace in his book on Greek syntax:  "The basic role of the adjective is as a modifier of a noun or other substantive. As such, it can be modified by an adverb. Not infrequently, however, it deviates from this role by one step in either direction. That is, it can either stand in the place of a noun OR IN THE PLACE OF AN ADVERB. Its nominal role is a natural extension of the adjective in which the noun is elided; its adverbial role is MORE IDIOMATIC, usually reserved for special terms." (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 292)  Again, Wallace postulates: "The adjective is sometimes used IN THE PLACE OF THE ADVERB. Some of the uses and are analogous to colloquial English, such as "I am doing good," or "Come here quick!" Other, more frequent, instances involve idiotmatic uses of the adjective, such as the accusative adjective in the neuter used adverbially. (Surprising as it may seem, this idiomatic adverbial use is frequently, if not normally, ARTICULAR.) These include a large group of stereotyped terms, such as Brachu, loipon, mikron, monon, polu, proton, husteron, ktl." (Wallace, ibid, pg. 293) Therefore, it is evident that based upon the context of John 5, and the clear fact that adjectives (even if in the attributive position in a prepositional phrase) can function adverbially to form a more idiomatic structure in the English translation. Thus, the A.V. 1611 preserves the better reading "that cometh from God only?" instead of, "that comes from the only God?" in the modern translational perversions. POINT: LEAVE JOHN 5:44 AS IT STANDS IN THE A.V. 1611 AND LEARN SOME MORE DETAILS ABOUT GREEK GRAMMAR AND CHAPTER CONTEXTS BEFORE YOU MESS WITH THE GREATEST BOOK IN THE HISTORY OF THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE.  3. ERROR: MATTHEW 14:9  James May, who purports himself to be some sort of up-and-coming scholastic intellectual as he shows exhibit "C" of the "ERRORS" in the A.V. 1611. In his article, "The Great Inconsistency of King James Onlyism," located on The King James Only Resource Center website (this same website hosts articles for top Alexandrian Cult nincompoops such as Doug Kutilek, Bob Ross, Rick Norris, Gary Hudson, James Price, etc.), May informs us: "Matthew 14:9. Earlier in this paper there is a quotation from David Sorenson in which he states his belief that although the first edition of the King James Bible contained errors of punctuation and printing, over the years these errors have been corrected so that the KJV now contains no errors whatsoever. This assertion can be easily disproved: And the king was sorry: nevertheless for the oath's [1611: oaths] sake, and them which sat with him at meat, he commanded it to be given her. ~ Matthew 14:9  All editions of the Greek NT in this verse have the reading, "dia de tous orkous," "nevertheless for the oaths' sake." The word "oaths'" (orkous) is plural in Greek. The KJV 1611 failed to insert the necessary apostrophe for the possessive of its translation ("nevertheless for the oaths sake"). This makes it impossible in English to determine if "oaths" is singular or plural. Later editors "corrected" the problem by inserting the apostrophe in the wrong place, thus rendering "oath's" as singular. Under Sorenson's view of the KJV, we must believe that God made an error when he had this corrected, for he had the apostrophe inserted such that "oath's" is now singular in current editions of the KJV, "nevertheless for the oath's sake." All editions of the Textus Receptus have the plural. The King James Bible (current edition) has the singular. The KJV is in error." (May, "The Great Inconsistency of King James Onlyism," article) In the passage before us, the alleged ERROR in the A.V. 1611 text is that the A.V. translators were completely blind and oblivious to the basic rules of Greek syntax; that even though each member of the group of translators had read through and inspected this verse a minimum of 14 times, somehow this "oversight" passed by 47 men. The ERROR presented here by this translational schitzophrenic, James May, is that the King James Bible translated a Greek plural accusative as an English singular! Therefore, the reading shouldn't be "nevertheless for the oath's sake," but "nevertheless for the oaths' sake." May is kind enough to tell us at least twice in the paragraph above that "all editions of the Greek NT" have the plural. But, as with the other two previous examples, James May is going to end up in the same ship as Joyner and Hushbeck, sailing off into the sunset of abysmal ignorance. 1) May takes a 1611 reprint edition of the A.V. text and states that no apostrophe was located on the word in the verse in question. This much is true. However, his first ERROR is that he assumes that this problem was corrected by a later "editor" who inserted the apostrophe "in the wrong place." Nevertheless, an inspection of the Holman 1611 King James Bible reprint reveals that no marks of possession were placed upon words in that edition. I didn't do a full collation of possessive words in the entire 1611 text, but I did manage to view a few of them. Among the singular possessives now clearly in the A.V. text, the following were without punctuation marks in the 1611 edition:  I Sam. 2:8-"...for the pillars of the earth are the LORDS, and hee hath set the world vpon them." II Sam. 18:18-" ...: And hee called the pillar after his owne name, and it is called vnto this day, Absaloms place." Psalm 113:3- "...: the LORDS name is to be praised."  Micah 6:2- "Heare yee, O mountaines, the LORDS controuersie, and ye strong foundations of the earth..."  Matthew 19:12- "...which haue made themselues Eunuches for the kingdome of heauens sake..." (notice this verse has an identical construction to the passage in Matthew 14:9) Other such passage include Romans 14:8; 15:30; 16:10; I Cor. 7:22; 10:28; 11:26; 11:29; Gal. 1:19; 3:15; 3:29; Phil. 2:21; Rev. 1:10, etc.  The point is, apostrophe marks of punctuation weren't used in the 1611 editions. Therefore it is circular reasoning for Mr. May to assume that because the word for "oath's" is plural in Greek, then it is automatically a "mistake" by a future A.V. "editor" to add the singular possessive instead of the plural. 2) May's second ERROR is a manifest failure to read simple English. The A.V. 1611 told you in no uncertain terms in Matthew 14:7 in the context, that the OATH was indeed SINGULAR! Note: "Whereupon he promised with AN OATH to give her whatsoever she would ask." (Matthew 14:7) There isn't one word in the context about more than one oath being made, thereby warranting plural possessive punctuation. The only way someone could come to such a ridiculous conclusion is by spending their time in Greek texts that they evidently don't know how to read. Verse 7 has "horkou" as as Genitive singular in "the Greek." 3) The next writhing blunder manifested by this half-baked Bible critic is his lack of study in the realm of consistency. Here you have James May complaining about the A.V. 1611 translating an accusative plural (horkous) as a singular possessive in English (oath's), when that reprobated sucker didn't say two words about the following: A) "and saying, Repent, for the kingdom of heaven is at hand!" (Matthew 3:2, New King James Version). In this passage you have a GREEK GENITIVE PLURAL (ouranon) translated as an English singular (heaven) in a modern Bible translation. Do we now have an error in subsequently 99% of all English versions extant in this passage? Did all of them miss the Greek plural and make a mistake by translating it as an English singular? B) "After the Sabbath, at dawn on the first day of the week, Mary Magdalene and the other Mary went to look at the tomb." (Matthew 28:1, New International Version). In this particular case, you have a GREEK GENITIVE PLURAL (sabbaton) translated as an English singular (Sabbath). Again I submit the question, did literally 99% of the extant English versions miss the difference completely? I think not! The simple truth is that it is only an "ERROR" when it is committed by the King James Bible.  C) How James May could miss the following is completely beyond any sort of rational comprehension. For this point I quote Dr. Peter Ruckman discussing this verse in his book, "King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism": "... in the same book, by the same author (Matthew), we find 'dia ten Basileian ton ouranon' which is translated by the NKJV as 'the kingdom of heaven.' Better than that, this time the 'dia' precedes the expression exactly as the 'dia' was found before 'tous horkous.' That isn't all. The manner in which the ASV, NASV, RV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, and NKJV translated Matthew 19:12 was IDENTICAL to the way the AV translated the plural in Matthew 14:9."  "Observe! 'For the kingdom of heaven's sake' (Matt. 19) with 'HEAVEN' as a PLURAL in all manuscripts."  " 'For the oath's sake' (Matt. 14), with "OATH" as a plural in all manuscripts. Both constructions were identical." (Ruckman, King James Onlyism versus Scholarship Onlyism, pg. 70) 4) Nonetheless, because James May isn't a faithful student of the Bible (II Tim. 2:15) or a decent student of Greek syntax, he failed to notice the most egregious error of all in his tirade against the most magniloquent book in history; that this phenomenon of a Greek plural being rendered with an English singular is a viable rule with a reasonable syntactical point to it: " A difficult pl. which may be explained in this way is Mt 2:23 prophets: the reference is to one prophet only. Zerwick calls it pluralis categoriae (4a) and he further suggests it as an explanation of Mt 27:44 (after Jerome, Aug., Ambrose): both robbers are said to reproach Jesus whereas it was only one, and we need not call in another tradition to help us out. OTHER DIFFICULTIES ARE THUS SOLVED: MT 14:9 MK 6:26 horkous oath..." (Moulton/Turner, A Grammar of New Testament Greek, Vol. III-Syntax, pg. 26) Furthermore, if you read my article on "Why Gary Hudson Could Never Teach Greek at The Pensacola Bible Institute," you should have noticed my explanations on basic Greek grammar as to how nouns, adjectives, etc., must match in gender, number, and case. Well, such is the case in Greek in Matthew 14:9. The reason that "horkous" is used as a plural in that passage is because it matches the participle, "tous sunanakeimenous" ("them which sat with him at meat") in gender (masculine), number (plural), and case (accusative). Since the singular (see Matt. 14:7 again in Greek and English) oath is applied to the multiple dinner guests, it is therefore rendered as a plural in Greek to match the plural participle with which it goes. Wallace calls this "a categorical plural." He states in his Grammar book: "The categorical plural is also used when a SINGLE grammatical object [Note by Nachimson: like horkous in the accusative case] (not subject) is in view." (Wallace, Greek Grammar Beyond the Basics, pg. 405) POINT: LEAVE MATTHEW 14:9 AS IT STANDS IN THE A.V. 1611 AND REALIZE THAT IT IS YOU WHO ARE IN "ERROR" AND NOT THE BOOK. ADMIT THAT THERE ARE SOME AVENUES THAT YOU DIDN'T EXHAUST IN YOUR HASTE TO RID BIBLE-BELIEVING CHRISTENDOM OF THE GOD-HONORED TEXT. FINALLY, START APPROACHING PROBLEM TEXTS WITH A BELIEVING HEART, AND ALWAYS GIVE THE BOOK THE BENEFIT OF THE DOUBT. 4. ERROR: I CHRONICLES 5:26  James White, Director of Alpha and Omega Ministries ( www.aomin.org ) and an "elder" at the Phoenix Reformed Baptist Church (Calvinistic set-up), is most concerned enough to give this "ERROR" in the A.V. 1611 as a part of his entrance into the Alexandrian Apostate hall of shame:  "Another problem related to a name, this time of a king, is found in I Chronicles 5:26: KJV- "And the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, AND the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away..." NASB- "So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul, king of Assyria, EVEN the spirit of Tilgath-pilneser king of Assyria, and he carried them away into exile..."  "As the NASB correctly notes, Pul was Tilgath-pilneser. The KJV rendering makes it look as if Pul is one king, and Tilgath-pilneser another, possibly a co-regent with Pul, when such was not the case." (White, The King James Only Controversy: Can you trust the Modern Translations?, pg. 228) White's comical contention with the A.V. 1611 is that the A.V. lists Pul and Tilgath-pilneser as both being kings of Assyria, while the NASB says "EVEN" thereby rendering the two kings as simply ONE king. It should also be noted at this point that the NKJV endorsed by Jerry Falwell, of which Curtis Hutson and W.A. Criswell were committee members, makes the distinction between the A.V. 1611 and other modern versions even more apparent. It states in the passage at hand, " So the God of Israel stirred up the spirit of Pul king of Assyria, THAT IS, Tiglath-Pileser king of Assyria..." The question is, which one is right, and is the A.V. FINALLY in "ERROR" here in I Chronicles 5:26? Well, we knew the answer coming into this thing, so let's just demonstrate how we came to the conclusion that the A.V. is right and everyone and everything else that is contrary is wrong!  1) There was clearly more than one king of Assyria at the time of Tiglath-pilneser. Observe II Chronicles 28:16: "At that time did king Ahaz send unto THE KINGS OF ASSYRIA to help him." Even if by this time the other king wasn't Pul (for a number of years had lapsed; Pul is only mentioned in connection with king Menahem which was several years prior to Ahaz, and isn't mentioned again), the verse still demonstrates that the concept of their being more than one king in Assyria during the time of Tiglath-pilneser. Could it be that Pul was one of them (II Kings 15:19-20) at one point, and Shalmaneser ( II Kings 17:3) was another much later? Either way their had to be more than one, which vindicates the A.V. 1611 in I Chron. 5:26 against the charges of James White.  2) If Pul and Tiglath-Pilneser were the one and same king as the NASB, NKJV and James White purport, then they teach a direct lie contrary to the plain words of scripture which never says that any PUL led anyone away captive. Notice this intricate detail about Pul in II Kings 15:19-20:  "And Pul the king of Assyria came against the land: and Menahem gave Pul a thousand talents of silver, that his hand might be with him to confirm the kingdom in his hand. And Menahem exacted the money of Israel, even of all the mighty men of wealth, of each man fifty shkels of silver, to give to the king of Assyria. So the king of Assyria turned back, and stayed not there in the land."  According to this passage that you just read, Pul didn't lead anybody captive away anywhere. Menahem, who began reigning over Israel in Samaria in the 39th year of Azariah ( II Kings 15:17), paid him off with silver to turn around and leave. Evidently, the Lord stirred up Pul's spirit to invade Israel (I Chron. 5:26; II Kings 15:19) during Menahem's 10-year reign. God allows Menahem to succeed in the payoff (which is nothing more than God extending more grace to his people), then Pekahiah takes over after Menahem kicks the bucket (II Kings 15:22-23) in the 50th year of Azariah. If you will notice carefully, Pekahiah continues to do evil (II Kings 15:24), even though the Lord had let Menahem have a break earlier. So, the Lord allows Pekah to rise up in rebellion against Pekahiah, and subsequently succeed in a conspiracy to take Pekahiah out. Now, the Israelites still haven't been led away captive by any king of Assyria yet! However, after Pekah blows it by doing evil in the sight of the Lord after he becomes king ( II Kings 15:28), the Lord finally sends Tilgath-pileser in (II Kings 15:29), AND NOW they are led away captive. In between Pul getting the payoff and Tilgath-pileser coming in to complete the verse in I Chronicles 5:26 and II Kings 15:29, you have a minimun of 10-33 years in between the reigns of Menahem, Pekahiah, and Pekah from the start of Menahem to the end of Pekah. Therefore, if Pul's payoff hypothetically were at the end of Menahem's reign, and Tilgath-pileser's invasion was at the beginning of Pekah's reign, then you still have a minimun of 3 years that lapse. However, the chances are, that they were longer. Clearly, Pul was one king and Tilgath-pileser was the other. God started the stirring up of spirits against Israel with Pul, but gave them a bare minimum of 3 years additional grace time to get it right(by allowing Pul to be paid off), then sent in another king to take them captive for their idolatry and transgressions ( I Chron. 5:25). Such are the ways of comparing scripture with scripture in the plain English text of the A.V. 1611, while dismissing the infantile ramblings of a Bible-correcting egomaniac like James R. White. POINT: LEAVE I CHRONICLES 5:26 AS IT STANDS IN THE A.V. 1611 AND LEARN TO COMPARE SCRIPTURE WITH SCRIPTURE THAT YIELDS ACCURATE HISTORICAL INFORMATION THAT EASILY VINDICATES THE TEXT AGAINST GAINSAYERS. Consequently, as I stated at the beginning of this treatise, the underlying fundamental behind whether or not the A.V. 1611 is infallible, is the notion as to whether or not some deluded nut can conclusively prove an error in the A.V. 1611 that is a clear error that cannot be reconciled. James White tells us: "When they claim the KJV is inspired and inerrant, the demonstration of errors in that translation effectively (for anyone willing to follow the truth to its logical conclusions) ends the debate." (White, King James Only Controversy, pg. 224) 1) Anyone willing to follow the truth through to conclusion will realize that the methods employed by text-critical proponents like James White are one-sided and never give the full spectrum of the evidence. I have shown you 4 clear cases like that today. 2) Anyone willing to follow the truth through to conclusion will realize that the opposing viewpoint, (Originals only inspiration) is a factor that has a lovely premise, but an faulty conclusion. As I demonstrated in my article on Inspiration, these A.V. Only opponents cannot produce the text which they claim was originally inspired. With the King James position, that conclusion can be demonstrated, and the SCRIPTURES can be produced! 3) White's sentence above goes on further to show that the rudimentary factor underlying infallibility is indeed the alleged errors in the King James Bible. Therefore, as I stated in the beginning, and so say I now again, until an "ERROR" can be proved in that Book beyond all conceivable doubt, I say let that text stand until the end of time! When it comes to the notion of correcting the King James Bible or castigating its critics, I'll stick with castigating its critics. Copyright 2005 - All Rights Reserved - www.av1611answers.com