Today I want to deal with this info graphic. This is produced by Jack McElroy. He is the author of several King James version only books. One of his books, “can you trust just one Bible”, contains list of answers to the most common anti-king James version accusations. I would point out there that it is not answers to the most common anti-king James version onlyist accusations, but rather a book that wrongly supposes people are averse to the king James version itself. McElroy has another book called which Bible would Jesus use? The Bible version controversy explained, and resolved. He has another book called Bible versions exposed which has over 400 blockbuster editorial memes that you can use to demonstrate the shocking truth about modern Bible versions, their errors, deficiencies, and defective doctrines. that is where you can find this infographic or as he likes to call it, a meme. On behalf of those of us who live on memes I can tell you this is not a meme. But I will save that rant for another day. Several King James version onlyists drop these graphics from this book on me almost nonstop. They demand I deal with every single one of these. And then, when I do, they get mad and tell me that I’ve taken something out of context, or I’m just a Bible corrector. But let’s take a minute and examine this one in particular. This one is on Psalm 10, verses four and five. Really, just psalm 10:5.


6 Responses

  1. I think this Psalms 10:4 is a great example how you and I would see the version issue differently.

    When I look at a passage in a version my approach is: “I know they made changes related to copyright protection and requirements, and maybe some theological bent, now lets see what the changes are.” While I think you would try to see every version as basically saying the same thing though worded differently. My approach is assuming differences in meaning, while you would see a varying degree of accuracy. Please let me know if I am misrepresenting your view.

    I think the Coverdale, Bishops, Webster’s and NKJV all get this verse correct. So, though I am not a Hebrew scholar, I am seeing an overwhelming number of scholars throughout the centuries that back up the KJV’s translation in this verse. (and there does not seem to be a manuscript selection issue.)

    Now is my expectations the meaning of this verse being changed in new translations happening?

    Based on the English language, I am going to say the following versions have different meanings than the Historical (KJV) translation:

    NLT – “God is dead”
    NIV – Poor, but no change in meaning
    CSB – “scheming” -that is a difference, & “since there’s no God”
    NASB20 – “no God in all his schemes”
    NET – “God won’t hold me accountable; he doesn’t care” – no idea how they got that from the Hebrew.
    NRSVue – “God has forgotten; he has hidden his face; he will never see it.” – No clue how they got that.
    ESV – “There is no God”, also Footnote adds “or of his anger” — Now this is an interesting one from my perspective because the footnotes are part of the copyright of the ESV, and “of his anger” is in no other version, and IS new authorship for copyright purposes (regardless if we agree that is it’s purpose.)

    Therefor, I am going to state the above versions are wrong in this verse, and the KJV is: “a correct translation of the correct manuscripts” (How I define my KJVonlyism) I would also point out, the NIV is better than the other versions listed, and I am no NIV fan.

  2. I looked at 10:5 after my post on 10:4, I simply find the change of meanings to be amazing. I would encourage you to evaluate 10:5.

    I believe you like the LSB, so I would ask you to take the meaning of the LSB in verse 10:5 and ask yourself if it is in agreement with other versions. (It’s not)

    There is this idea in “modern version” circles (for example Dr. Mark Ward) that to really understand the Bible you need to go back to the Hebrew and Greek. While at first I saw this as a way to shut up KJVO people that had not been to seminary, I now see this as a “Mea culpa” in there is such a varying difference in meaning between modern versions the only solution is to re-translate each verse for yourself, and weigh your own correctness based on how much education you have had.

      • “There is no problem with the LSB/NASB’s translation of that verse.” – I was not saying there was a problem with the LSB/NASB in that verse. My point was assuming the LSB/NASB is correct, you have a lot of versions that are not correct, not in wording, but in meaning.

        For example:
        NIV: “your laws are rejected by”
        NLT: “they don’t see your punishment awaiting them”
        CSB: “your loft judgments have no effect on him”

        The issue is not “formal equivalence” vs. “dynamic” or even paraphrase, the issue is they don’t mean close to the same thing (in fact, “no effect” and “punishment awaiting” are opposites.)

        I honestly think if you and I went objectively verse by verse through the entire Bible with the LSB/NASB, ESV, CSB, NLT that at the end of the process the amount of time you found “error” with the ESV/CSB/NLT/NIV vs. LSB/NASB would force you into a “LSB/NASB Onlyist” camp with the acknowledgement other versions might say the same as the LSB/NASB but in a smoother or easier to understand way.

        You would have the exact same “onlyist” position I hold, but with a critical text basis.

        You have eluded to, and/or stated KJVO people don’t hold the KJV to the standard they hold modern versions too. What I am saying is the converse is actually true for the modern version camp.

        • No, it wouldn’t. I have my preferences, but I understand that there are differences in the translation goals and methodologies of the various translations. There are a small handful that I really like. There are many that I do not consider faithful translations, and then there are those that tried to be faithful to the original languages within their translation methodologies.

          It comes down to, what is the standard? If the TR is the standard, the NKJV is truer to it than the KJV. If the KJV is the standard, then only the KJV will do.

          I have no problem with your preference towards the KJV. I only object to those who reject all other versions as corrupt perversions and not actual bibles.

          • “There are many that I do not consider faithful translations”

            “I only object to those who reject all other versions as corrupt perversions and not actual bibles.”

            These two statement when put together are problematic. Though I will admit I used to hold the same position that you do. An analogy would be at what point does doctrinal views on Sanctification impact Justification?

            But at what point does a pastor warn people away from bible not consider faithful translations? This is where I lost all respect for Dr. Mark Ward, he writes a paper on the NRSVue 1 Cor 6:9, but then states he has no opinion on the rest of the NRSVue. He should have just been honest and said the NRSVue should be avoided and an alternative used.

            Translation goals and methods objectively only relate to “readability” and don’t relate to changes in meanings. I actually have less issue with the NIV1984 than I would with the ESV and CSB because the NIV makes less changes in meaning.

            I don’t think our positions are wildly different from a “translation” standpoint, though we would be diametrically opposed from a textural criticism standpoint (preservation.)

            I guess my objective question to you would be: How many times does a bible have to conflict in meaning with the consensus of the KJV/NKJV/NASB before it is corrupt?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *