PDA

View Full Version : The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco


brandplucked
12-31-2006, 02:32 PM
The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco

Most Christians today do not believe that any Bible in any language is now the complete and inerrant words of God. This is a simple and undeniable fact. When pressed to the wall, most Christians today will fall back on the idea that "only the originals were inspired and inerrant". Yet we all know that there are no such things as "the originals" and they never did make up a single book called the Bible.

God has promised to preserve His words in the Book of the LORD here on this earth and I and many others believe He has done this in the only Book believed by thousands to be the inerrant and complete words of God - the King James Bible.

Nobody defends the NKJV, NIV, NASB, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard or any other of the alphabet soup versions as being the inerrant words of God. None of these versions agrees with any other in both texts and meanings in either Testament.

All modern versionists believe the Hebrew texts have been corrupted in numerous places, and they differ wildly concerning what texts make up the New Testament. It is well documented that versions like the NASB, NIV, RSV, ESV etc. often reject the Hebrew readings and frequently they differ among themselves as to which readings are legitimate and which are not. For proof of this, see the following two articles.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos.html

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/NIVapos2.html

The purpose of this little study is to show by way of a mere SAMPLING just SOME of the textual variants found in today's hodgepodge of multiple-choice versions in just one book of the Bible - the book of Isaiah the prophet. Most of these textual variants are based on the dubious readings found in the Dead Sea Scrolls (DSS).

We could easily do this same type of comparative study in any book of the Bible, but I hope this single book of Isaiah will demonstrate the utter confusion that exists today among the various "scholars" who put together these conflicting versions.

If the first few examples don't grab your attention or awaken a godly concern, then please keep on reading a bit further. Pretty soon the accumulation of example after example should make an indelible impression on your mind and spirit.

Isaiah 3:24 - "...and instead of a stomacher a girding of sackcloth; and BURNING instead of beauty." "Burning" is the reading of the Hebrew Masoretic texts, the Geneva Bible, Bishops', Green's, New Life Bible and several others while the NKJV, NASB, ESV, NIV translate this as "branding", but the bigger change is found in the RSV and NRSV where they follow the DDS instead and read: "SHAME instead of beauty."

Isaiah 5:17 - "Then shall the lambs feed after their manner, and the waste places of the fat ones shall STRANGERS eat." So read the Hebrew texts and the NASB, NKJV, RV, ASV. However the NIV says: "LAMBS will feed" and then footnotes that "lambs" comes from the LXX but the Hebrew reads "strangers will eat". Also reading "lambs" or "kids" are the RSV and NRSV but the more recent ESV now reads "NOMADS shall eat".

Isaiah 9:17 - "Therefore the Lord shall HAVE NO JOY in their young men...". So reads the Hebrew Masoretic text as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV, RSV and ESV. The Holman also reads this way but tells us in a footnote that the DSS reads "NOT SPARE" instead of "rejoice over" and the NRSV follows the DSS reading "Lord DID NOT HAVE PITY on their young people."

Isaiah 14:4 - "...How hath the oppressor ceased! the GOLDEN CITY ceased!". This is the reading found in the KJB, RV, ASV, NKJV, Hebrew Names Version, Third Millenium bible and others. However the NIV, Holman, ESV footnotes tells us that they have followed the Dead Sea Scrolls reading of "fury" and so read the NASB, RSV, and NRSV too saying something like: "how FURY has ceased" (NASB).

Isaiah 19:18 - "...one shall be called the city of DESTRUCTION." So read the Masoretic texts as well as the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, NIV and the ESV, but the RSV, NRSV and Holman Standard follow the DSS and say: "the city OF THE SUN", while the LXX has "city of RIGHTEOUSNESS". Let's see, "destruction", "sun" and "righteousness". Yeah, they're all pretty close in meaning. Right?

Isaiah 21:8 KJB ( NKJV, Geneva, Bishops' Bible 1568, Darby, Young's, Jewish translations and many others) - "And he cried, A LION: My lord..." RV, ASV - "And he cried AS A LION: O Lord...."

The NIV, Holman, RSV, NRSV, ESV say: "And THE LOOKOUT shouted" then tell us in a footnote that the word "lookout" comes from the Syriac and Dead Sea Scrolls, but the Hebrew says "a lion". The NASB of 1977 says: "then the SENTRY called like a LION", combining both the Syriac and the Hebrew, but now the 1995 NASB omits "lion" altogether and says: "Then the LOOKOUT called, O Lord..." One NASB is not the same as the next NASB. There are literally thousands of changes between the 1977 edition and the 1995 update edition.

For my article on "The ever changing 'literal' NASB" please see the following link: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/whbins.html

Isaiah 23:10 - "PASS THROUGH thy land as a river, O daughter of Tarshish..." "Pass through" is the Hebrew Masoretic readings and that of the RV, ASV, Young's, Geneva, and the NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman. However the NIV follows what it says is the reading found in the DSS and the LXX and says: "TILL your land as along the Nile, O daughter of Tarshish..."

Isaiah 33:8 - "...he hath broken the covenant, he hath despised THE CITIES, he regardeth no man." So reads the Masoretic text, the RV, ASV, NKJV, ESV and Holman. The Holman tells us in a footnote that the DSS reads "witnesses" instead and the RSV, NRSV and NIV follow this saying: "ITS WITNESSES are despised."

Isaiah 34:4-5 - "And all the host of heaven shall be dissolved... For my sword SHALL BE BATHED in heaven". The Holman Standard informs us of two different readings found in these verses that come from the DSS. In verse 4 the DSS adds the words "AND THE VALLEYS WILL BE SPLIT" and in verse 5 it changes "shall be bathed in heaven" to "shall APPEAR in heaven". However none of the modern versions followed either of these readings this time. But apparently they want us to be aware of the fact that there are variant readings and we can never be sure about what God inspired or not. Daniel Wallace also mentions these two variant readings for us in his NET version footnotes. Nice of them to do that for us, isn't it?

Isaiah 37:25 - "I have digged and drunk water; ". So read the Masoretic text and the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, NRSV, ESV and Holman but the NIV, TNIV follow the DSS reading and add the extra words "IN A FOREIGN LAND".

Isaiah 37:28 - "But I know thy ABODE and thy going out and thy coming in, and thy rage against me." So read the RV, ASV, NASB, RSV, ESV, NIV and Holman. However only the NRSV 1989 follows the DSS reading instead and says: "I know your RISING UP and your sitting down...". It then informs us in their footnote that "the Masoretic Text lacks 'your rising up' ".

Isaiah 40:6 - "The voice said, Cry. And HE said, What shall I cry?" So read the Geneva Bible, NKJV, NASB, Young's, Darby and many others. However as the NKJV footnote tells us, even though the Masoretic text reads this way the DSS, LXX and Vulgate change the HE to "I said" and so read the RSV, NRSV, ESV and NIV.

Isaiah 41:14 - "Fear not, thou worm Jacob, and YE MEN of Israel; I will help thee..." So reads the Masoretic text, the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, RSV, ESV and Holman. However the Holman footnote tells us the LXX reads "small number" while the DSS has "DEAD ONES of Israel". The NIV follows the LXX and reads: "Do not be afraid, O worm Jacob, O LITTLE Israel", while the NRSV 1989 actually says: "YOU INSECT Israel"!!! and then tells us that this supposedly comes from the Syriac, while the Hebrew clearly says "men of Israel". Notice that so far no one has yet followed the DSS reading of "DEAD ONES of Israel".

Isaiah 41:23 - "...or do evil, that we may BE DISMAYED, and behold it together." So read the Hebrew texts and the RV, ASV, RSV, ESV, NIV, and NKJV. The NASB says "anxiously look about", but the Holman Standard informs us that the DSS read "THAT WE MAY HEAR" instead of "by dismayed" but nobody so far has followed this reading.

Isaiah 41:25 - "...from the rising of the sun he shall call upon MY name". So read most versions but the Holman Standard informs us that the DSS read HIS name instead of MY name.

Isaiah 43:19 - "I will even make a way in the wilderness, and RIVERS in the desert." So read the NASB, NKJV, RSV, NRSV, NIV, and the Holman, but Holman footnotes that the DSS reading is PATHS instead of RIVERS. So far no one has adopted this one yet.

Isaiah 44:21 - "THOU SHALT NOT BE FORGOTTEN OF ME". Thus read the Masoretic texts and the RV, NASB, NIV, ESV, RSV, NKJV etc. but the Holman footnote again informs us that the DSS reads: "ISRAEL, DO NOT FORGET ME" instead. Among the modern versions the New English Bible 1970 and the Douay 1950 follow this reading.

Isaiah 45:2 - "I will go before thee, and make the CROOKED PLACES STRAIGHT". So read the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Judaica Press Tanach, the Geneva bible, Coverdale, Young's, NKJV, Lamsa's translation of the Syraic, Spanish Reina Valera, and the Third Millenium Bible. Other versions like the NASB, ASV, and Holman read "the rough places smooth". But the NKJV and Holman footnotes inform us that the Dead Sea Scrolls read MOUNTAINS, and so the NIV, RSV, NRSV "I will LEVEL THE MOUNTAINS", while the Targum reads "I will trample down the walls" and the Vulgate has "I will humble the great ones of the earth". It's nice to keep our options open, isn't it?

Isaiah 49:12 - "and these from the land of SINIM". So read the Hebrew texts and the NKJV, NASB, RV, ASV, and Holman. However the RSV and ESV read "SYENE" and tell us this is the reading of the DSS, but the Hebrew reads SINIM. Then the NIV and TNIV go even further and say: "from the region of ASWAN" and tell us this is the DSS reading while the Masoretic texts has SINIM.

Isaiah 49:17 - "Thy CHILDREN shall make haste." This is the Masoretic reading and that of the RV, ASV, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Hebrew Names Version, Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, NKJV, and even the NIV and TNIV. However the footnotes inform us that the Dead Sea Scrolls, and Vulgate read BUILDERS instead of "children" and so read the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB and Holman Standard = "Your BUILDERS hurry" (NASB).

Isaiah 49:24 - "Shall the prey be taken from the mighty, or the LAWFUL captive be delivered?" So read the RV 1881, ASV 1901, Bishops' Bible 1568, Hebrew Names Bible, Webster's, KJV 21st century, Third Millenium Bible and the Spanish Reina Valera. The idea is that it was right and just that they be taken captives - thus "lawfully" captive. The NKJV, Holman Standard, Young's, Darby and other versions have "rightfully captive". However the DSS reads "fearsome one or tyrant" and thus we have the NASB, NIV, RSV, NRSV, ESV "captives OF A TYRANT be delivered".

Isaiah 51:6 - "...they that dwell therein shall die IN LIKE MANNER". So reads the Masoretic text and the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, ESV and Holman. However the Holman Standard informs us that SOME DSS manuscripts read: "die LIKE GNATS". The RSV and NRSV read: "shall die LIKE GNATS" and the NIV reads: "its inhabitants DIE LIKE FLIES".

Isaiah 52:5 - "...they that rule over them make them TO HOWL". Even the RSV, NASB, NRSV, ESV, NKJV, and Holman follow the Masoretic texts here (though the NASB, ESV change the meaning from that found in the KJB), but the NIV rejects them and follows the DSS reading of "those who rule them MOCK".

Isaiah 52:15 - "So shall he SPRINKLE many nations". So read the Geneva Bible, RV, ASV, NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and Holman Standard. However the alleged LXX version reads: "he shall STARTLE many nations" and so do versions like the RSV, NRSV, Message and Daniel Wallace's NET version.

The NKJV also casts doubt on this correct reading which refers to the sacrifice of Christ by telling us in a footnote "Or startle". The Hebrew word is #5137 nah-zah, and is used repeatedly in such verses as: "there is sprinkled of the blood", "and sprinkle the blood seven times", "thou shalt take of the blood and sprinkle..." etc. See Exodus 29:21; Leviticus 4:6, 17; 5:9; 8:11, 30 etc. There is no doubt about the correct meaning of the verse. See also 1 Peter 1:2 referring to "the sprinkling of the blood of Jesus Christ".

Isaiah 53:9 - "And HE made his grave with the wicked". So read Green's literal, the Geneva Bible, KJV 21, and the Spanish Reina Valera, KJV 21, and the Third Millenium Bible to name a few. This is a peculiar one in that the Holman footnotes inform us that the DSS read "THEY made his grave with the wicked" and this is what the NKJV says! Then the NKJV footnotes that the "THEY" is literally HE. The NIV, NASB both change the meaning a bit with: "HE was assigned a grave with the wicked", but the RSV, ESV and Holman adopt the DSS reading of "THEY made his grave with the wicked." (Just like the NKJV did!)

Isaiah 53:11- "He shall see the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied." So read the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, RSV and the ESV. The ESV footnote tells us that the DSS adds words saying "He will see LIGHT. The NRSV 1989 says : "out of his anguish he shall SEE LIGHT", while the NIV has: "After the suffering of his soul he will SEE THE LIGHT OF LIFE and be satisfied." The NIV follows the DSS reading but the NASB and ESV do not.

Isaiah 54:9 - "For this is as THE WATERS of Noah unto me". So reads the Masoretic text and even the LXX, the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, Hebrew Names Version, Judaica Press Tanach, Complete Jewish Bible, RV, ASV, Young's, Darby, NKJV, Geneva, Bishops' etc. However the DSS reads DAYS instead of "waters" and so do the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NASB, NIV and Holman. Wallace's NET version also reads "DAYS of Noah" and tells us that the Hebrew text literally reads "waters" but in his opinion it should be emended (changed) to "days" because it is supplied by the Qumran scroll and other ancient versions except the Greek Septuagint. Do you begin to see how their minds work?

Isaiah 57:11 - "have not I held my peace even of old, and thou fearest me not?" In this case the NASB, NIV, ESV, NKJV and Holman follow the Masoretic texts but the Holman footnotes tell us that the DSS and LXX read: " And I, when I see you, I pass by", yet no one so far has followed this strange DSS reading.

Isaiah 60:19 - "...neither for brightness shall the moon give light unto thee...". So reads the Masoretic text and the RV, ASV, NKJV, NASB, NIV and ESV but the RSV and NRSV add two words found in the DSS, which were later omitted by the next series of "revisions". The RSV, NRSV say: "the moon give light to you BY NIGHT" and then tell us this additional reading comes from the DSS and the Greek LXX.

Isaiah 60:21 - "the branch of my planting, the work of MY hands". The Holman Standard informs us that the DSS read "HIS hand", but so far no one has followed this one yet. Daniel Wallace's NET version has paraphrased the verse in such a way that eliminates the Hebrew reading with: "they will be the product of my labor, through whom I reveal my splendor."

Isaiah 61:8 - "For I the LORD love judgment, I hate robbery FOR BURNT OFFERING". So reads the Hebrew Masoretic text, the modern Complete Jewish Bible, the Judaica Press Tanach, and the RV, ASV, NASB, NKJV, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, Young's and the Geneva bible. However the RSV, NRSV, ESV, NIV, NET version and Holman Standard follow a different reading which Holman says is found in "some Hebrew manuscripts, the DSS, Syriac and LXX while other Hebrew mss. read "burnt offering". These versions say: "I hate robbery AND INJUSTICE" (iniquity - NIV).

Isaiah 65:1 - "I said, Behold me, behold me, unto a nation THAT WAS NOT CALLED BY MY NAME." So read the Jewish translations of 1917, 1936, the Complete Jewish Bible, Judaica Press Tanach, Hebrew Names Bible, the Revised Version, ASV 1901, NKJV, ESV, Rotherham's Emphasized bible, and even the Holman Standard. However the Holman footnotes tell us that the DSS and LXX reading is "DID NOT CALL ON MY NAME" and this is the reading followed by such versions as the RSV, NRSV, NIV and NASB. Notice how the previous RV, ASV agree with the KJB reading but then the revised NASB switches it, and how the previous RSV, NRSV followed the DSS reading, but then the later revised ESV went back to the Hebrew reading found in the King James Bible. Go figure.

This is the mindset of all scholars who put together the conflicting and constantly changing multiple-choice versions today. They do the same thing in hundreds of places with the New Testament texts with their so called "science of textual criticism". For indisputable proof of the fickle and absurd nature of Textual Criticism please see my 5 part documented studies that begin here: http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/science.html

The central question to ask ourselves is this: Has God been faithful and true to His promises to preserve His complete and infallible words in "the book of the LORD" or not? I and many thousands of other Bible believers maintain that God does not lie and we have His pure and perfect words ONLY in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

"As for me, this is my covenant with them, saith the LORD; My spirit that is upon thee, and my words which I have put in thy mouth, shall not depart out of thy mouth, nor out of the mouth of thy seed, nor out of the mouth of thy seed's seed, saith the LORD, from henceforth and for ever." Isaiah 59:21

Will Kinney


The Dead Sea Scrolls Fiasco
return to articles

Chrystalwuzhere
12-31-2006, 03:47 PM
God has promised to preserve His words in the Book of the LORD here on this earth and I and many others believe He has done this in the only Book believed by thousands to be the inerrant and complete words of God - the King James Bible.

*sigh* :stop:

The King James Version is not inerrant.

Look and see...



2 Kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

Now look at the account of the same king (Ahaziah) from the book of 2 Chronicles....



2 Chronicles 22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

In 2 Kings it says Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign, and in 2 Chronicles it says he was 42. So, which was it? Twenty-two or Forty-two???

It's an error.

How do you explain this?

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 04:58 PM
And translation errors such as Genesis where verse 2 adds 'and' to the text where it is absolutely not in the Hebrew.

Or textual adds that are in absolutely no manurscript prior to 300 AD and are never found in any later manuscript except those originated by Catholics.

And where was the pefect Bible prior to the 1600s? You do realize it is not a single manuscript, but a compliation of many manuscripts edited together?

Or, how about the the Books of Apocrapha in the original 1611 version? Or all the edits that came after? Or the foot and margin notes of possible alternative translations and meaning the authors include in the original.

No. It is blindness to say the KJV is inerrant and absolutely true to the original autographs.

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 05:01 PM
Also, more problems are laid out HERE (http://www.christiantalkzone.net/forum/showthread.php?t=1744).

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 05:11 PM
An example from your link.

Revelation 14:4 "These are they which were not defiled with women; for they ARE VIRGINS." So read all Greek texts, and the RV, ASV, NKJV and ESV. However, the NASB of 1972 says: "for they are CELIBATES", and then footnotes that it literally says "virgins". A person may be celibate but not necessarily a virgin. Then the NASB 1977 changed this to read: "they HAVE KEPT THEMSELVES CHASTE." Neither rendering is "literal" or even accurate.

I note you avoid the NIV

4These are those who did not defile themselves with women, for they kept themselves pure. They follow the Lamb wherever he goes. They were purchased from among men and offered as firstfruits to God and the Lamb.

Now, what is the definition of the word you demand reads 'virgin.'

Strong's Number: 3933 Browse Lexicon (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/browse.cgi?number=3933&version=nas) Original WordWord Originparqenoßof unknown originTransliterated WordTDNT (http://bible.crosswalk.com/Lexicons/Greek/grk.cgi?number=3933&version=nas#Legend) EntryParthenos5:826,786Phonetic SpellingParts of Speechpar-then'-os http://bible.crosswalk.com/images/audio.gif (http://bible.crosswalk.com/cgi-bin/lexicon.pl?id=3933g) Noun Feminine Definition
a virgin
a marriageable maiden
a woman who has never had sexual intercourse with a man
one's marriageable daughter
a man who has abstained from all uncleanness and whoredom attendant on idolatry, and so has kept his chastity
one who has never had intercourse with women

Hmmm. Virgin only meaqns has not had sexual intercourse, yet chaste means has done no uncleanness.

Couple that with the saying they have not defiled themselves with women, which can involve non-sexual acts, and you see pure and chaste actually carries a broader meaning than just being virgin.

An example is that one who does not have sex can defile themselves by going to strip joints.

So your argument is empty.

eahaddix
12-31-2006, 05:30 PM
I and many thousands of other Bible believers maintain that God does not lie and we have His pure and perfect words ONLY in the Authorized King James Holy Bible.

After much study and prayer I am convinced God's pure, perfect and preserved words in English are found only in the Authorized King James Bible.
Source: "Another King James Bible Believer," by Will Kenny @ Geocities.com (http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/)

The belief that the King James Version of 1611 is a "pure," "perfect," and "infallible" text is simply untenable. Specifically, this belief inherently presupposes that God the Spirit literally dictated every single letter (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2503) and mark (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2762) of the written text to the authors of the said King James Version. However, even the authors of the said King James Version acknowledged that their translation contains certain errors.

No cause therefore why the Word translated should be denied to be the Word, or forbidden to be current, notwithstanding that some imperfections and blemishes may be noted in the setting forth of it.
Source: "Dispelling the Myth's of the KJV Onlyist," by Traditional Catholic Apologetics.net @ CatholicApologetics.net (http://www.catholicapologetics.net/dispelling_the_myth.htm)

See also The Authorized King James Version (KJV) of 1611 @ Jesus-is-Lord.com (http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/thebible.htm)

Now, are you going to accept these words of the translators as "infallible," or pick and choose which words of the translators are "infallible"?

Moreover, Christ Jesus did not say "thee," "thou," or any other Old English phraseology. This common sense objection alone proves that the authors of the said text rephrased Christ Jesus's actual or "pure" words. Now, are you going to acknowledge this fact, or simply start arbitrarily readjusting your definition of "pure"?

When all is said and done, King James Version Onlyism is a product of petty "holier than thou" legalism and quibbling, which distracts us from defending and promoting the Gospel. Specifically, King James Version Onlyism focuses on emphasizing the shortcomings of modern translations, while ignoring the shortcomings of the said King James Version, at any and all costs. In fact, I dare assert that King James Version Onlyism spends more time honoring the King James Version of 1611 than our God and Savior, Christ Jesus.

brandplucked
12-31-2006, 09:38 PM
God has promised to preserve His words in the Book of the LORD here on this earth and I and many others believe He has done this in the only Book believed by thousands to be the inerrant and complete words of God - the King James Bible.

*sigh* :stop:

The King James Version is not inerrant.

Look and see...



2 Kings 8:25 In the twelfth year of Joram the son of Ahab king of Israel did Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah begin to reign.

2 Kings 8:26 Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign; and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother’s name was Athaliah, the daughter of Omri king of Israel.

Now look at the account of the same king (Ahaziah) from the book of 2 Chronicles....



2 Chronicles 22:1 And the inhabitants of Jerusalem made Ahaziah his youngest son king in his stead: for the band of men that came with the Arabians to the camp had slain all the eldest. So Ahaziah the son of Jehoram king of Judah reigned.

2 Chronicles 22:2 Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign, and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. His mother’s name also was Athaliah the daughter of Omri.

In 2 Kings it says Ahaziah was 22 when he began to reign, and in 2 Chronicles it says he was 42. So, which was it? Twenty-two or Forty-two???

It's an error.

How do you explain this?

Hi Chry, you need some new material. This stuff is really old. What you are saying is that the Hebrew texts are wrong so you have to invent some number to put in there to "harmonize" the accounts.

First of all, it is clear that you are among the majority today who do not believe that any Bible is the inerrant words of God. Sorry to hear this, but not the least bit surprised.

Instead of taking up a lot of space, here is an article I wrote defending and explaining this apparent contradiction that is found in all the Hebrew texts and many other Bibles, not just the King James Bible.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html

Is there any outside chance that your understanding may be wrong and that the words of God might be right?

Will K

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 09:57 PM
There is one simple problem the KJV Onliest cannot get around and have no answer for.

Your claim is that God promised to preserve an inerrent Bible.

There were centuries where there was no 'Bible.' Your claim has a big problem there.

There was no KJV prior to 1611. You again have a big problem there.

The Bibles prior to 1611 do not agree with the KJV. Another big problem for your claim.

The manuscript the KJV was translated from didn't exist prior to circa 1600. It is a compilation document, not an original document.

So, either you need to provide a continous manuscript history, for ONE manuscript, not a family of manuscripts, all the way back to the Apostles, or you need to back off this absurd claim of your concept of an perfect Bible being promised to us for all time.

And again, the 1611 KJV contained multiple translations within its foot and margin notes. So much for a singular 'perfect' version.

You have 3 people, here, who have laid out absolute reasons why your claim is false.

The doctrines and teachings of the Bible have been preserved, without break, to this very day. A word for word has not.

It is an absurd claim to say the KJV is word for word literal with the Greek and Hebrew. Word for word give an erroneous translation of meaning, as any student of languages can tell you.

brandplucked
12-31-2006, 10:13 PM
There is one simple problem the KJV Onliest cannot get around and have no answer for.

Your claim is that God promised to preserve an inerrent Bible.

There were centuries where there was no 'Bible.' Your claim has a big problem there.

There was no KJV prior to 1611. You again have a big problem there.

The Bibles prior to 1611 do not agree with the KJV. Another big problem for your claim.

The manuscript the KJV was translated from didn't exist prior to circa 1600. It is a compilation document, not an original document.

So, either you need to provide a continous manuscript history, for ONE manuscript, not a family of manuscripts, all the way back to the Apostles, or you need to back off this absurd claim of your concept of an perfect Bible being promised to us for all time.




Hi Core. You toss up a smokescreen that tries to hide the fact that you yourself do not believe that ANY Bible or ANY text in ANY language is now the complete and inerrant words of God. If I am wrong in this, then clearly tell us what your "inerrant bible" is called so I can go out and get myself a copy.

As for your questions about where the words of God were before 1611, I have tried to address those here.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/before1611.html

Now, can you tell us where the pure words of God were before 1611 and more importantly where they are now? Should be an interesting answer to see from you.

Will K

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 10:16 PM
Hi,

No. I am not biting on that diversionary tactic.

YOU need to answer the issues, not throw negative proof claims.

Been down this road too many times. You cannot answer because you have no answers to offer.

brandplucked
12-31-2006, 10:20 PM
[QUOTE=LuckyStrike;17790]
The belief that the King James Version of 1611 is a "pure," "perfect," and "infallible" text is simply untenable. Specifically, this belief inherently presupposes that God the Spirit literally dictated every single letter (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2503) and mark (http://www.studylight.org/lex/grk/view.cgi?number=2762) of the written text to the authors of the said King James Version. [FONT=Arial]

No Lucky, it supposes that God really meant what He said about preserving His words in the book of the Lord here on this earth. He just happened to use the KJB translators as His instruments.

Now the central point is this. You have told us that the KJB is not the inerrant words of God. OK. Then do you yourself believe that any bible or any text is now the inerrant words of God? If so, what is it called and where can we get a copy?

The simple fact is you do not believe "The Bible" (any bible in print or one we can actually hold in our hands and read) IS the complete and inerrant words of God.

If I am wrong about your position and belief concerning the Bible, then dispel my ignorance and clearly tell us where we can get a copy of an inerrant Bible if it exists.

Should be easy for a man of your learning to do, right? Go ahead. Give it an honest shot.

Will K

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 10:20 PM
By the way, the misnamed Received Texts didn't exist when your articles claims it did. That is terrible manuscript history and claims.

The Majority Texts were a Catholic creation dating centuries later.

You want to post that kind of claim then post a museum or other source that shows the existence of these claim manuscripts, not the claim of some KJVO.

brandplucked
12-31-2006, 10:21 PM
Hi,

No. I am not biting on that diversionary tactic.

YOU need to answer the issues, not throw negative proof claims.

Been down this road too many times. You cannot answer because you have no answers to offer.

Hopefully some here will be able to read between the lines here and see the irony of your "response". He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Will

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 10:25 PM
As for your demand Lucky shows you where the inerrant Bible is, that is based on a none Biblical doctrinal claim not backed by history, grammar or linquistics.

If you smallest iota is taken literally, the only perfect Bible would be in Greek and Hebrew, not English, which eliminates the KJV.

If the smallest iota means meaning, then the KJV also falls, because it has way too many mistranslated words within its pages.

Either way, your doctrine fails.

CoreIssue
12-31-2006, 10:29 PM
Let me advise you of a rule we strictly enforce here. That being you don't come on and preach, telling us what the truth is and placing yourself above challenge.

That is common to cults and those who hold themselves above challenge.

Now, answer the challenges and points made, don't try to dismiss them with rhetoric, diversion and pointing to pre typed long pages that don't go anywhere.

Just post the pre 1611 Bible name for us to look at. That is a good start.

But, you cannot because it doesn't exist.

Chrystalwuzhere
12-31-2006, 11:17 PM
Hopefully some here will be able to read between the lines here and see the irony of your "response". He that hath ears to hear, let him hear.

Will

Oh, no, no, no. We're not going to do that here. That comment smacks very much of "I know the truth, and you are all wrong." Present your point and defend it. After all, this is a discussion board, and we discuss things here. Don't resort to insulting remarks.



Hi Chry, you need some new material. This stuff is really old. What you are saying is that the Hebrew texts are wrong so you have to invent some number to put in there to "harmonize" the accounts.

No, what I did was post two actual scriptures from the KJV itself that contradicts one another. What I'm saying is that the two don't match up, and therefore one of the verses is wrong.



First of all, it is clear that you are among the majority today who do not believe that any Bible is the inerrant words of God. Sorry to hear this, but not the least bit surprised.

Until you know me, and can see the contents of my heart, you cannot make that judgment. I believe that God's Word is absolutely inerrant. What I don't believe, however, is that the KJV is inerrant...and it's been proven above. As Lucky stated above, even the translators of the KJV knew there were errors.



Instead of taking up a lot of space, here is an article I wrote defending and explaining this apparent contradiction that is found in all the Hebrew texts and many other Bibles, not just the King James Bible.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html

I'm not clicking your links. If you want to discuss something, post it here and we'll discuss it.



Is there any outside chance that your understanding may be wrong and that the words of God might be right?

Will K

The Word of God is absolutely right. But the KJV has errors.

eahaddix
12-31-2006, 11:21 PM
No Lucky, it supposes that God really meant what He said about preserving His words in the book of the Lord here on this earth. He just happened to use the KJB translators as His instruments.

You are begging the question. How do you know that the said infallibility of the translators' work does not apply to the said quotation? "Because you say so"?

The simple fact is you do not believe "The Bible" (any bible in print or one we can actually hold in our hands and read) IS the complete and inerrant words of God.

You are attempting to erect a strawman argument. I do believe in the infallibility of the Biblical Scriptures, but not in the way which you demand that I do.

Then do you yourself believe that any bible or any text is now the inerrant words of God? If so, what is it called and where can we get a copy?

Well, you are using nebulous terminology to construct your "dilemma," so let us start by defining some basic philosophical concepts.
1) How do you define "pure," "perfect," and "inerrant"? For instance, do these terms reference an absolute formal equivalence and/or absolute dynamic equivalence to the original manuscripts? Or can these terms refer to any inspired "re-writing" of the Scriptures?
2) What is "the Word of God" or "the Bible" exactly? For instance, do these terms refer to the inspired message itself, the wording and grammar which communicates the message, the inexpressible divine conviction and guidance surrounding the message (i.e. John 16:7-11, 13 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%2016:7-11,%2013;&version=31;), John 6:44-45 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=John%206:44-45%20;&version=31;)), and/or all of these elements?

brandplucked
01-01-2007, 01:23 AM
Instead of taking up a lot of space, here is an article I wrote defending and explaining this apparent contradiction that is found in all the Hebrew texts and many other Bibles, not just the King James Bible.

http://www.geocities.com/brandplucked/22or42.html

I'm not clicking your links. If you want to discuss something, post it here and we'll discuss it.



How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible dubunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error.

Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts.

This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given - "There is a copyist error". There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool.

2 Chronicles 22:2 tells us that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign. The Hebrew texts, plus Wycliffe 1395,Coverdale 1535, Bishop's Bible 1568, Geneva Bible 1599, Jerome's Vulgate 382 A.D., Clementine Vulgate, the Revised Version 1881, the American Standard Version 1901, Douay 1950, Las Sagradas Escrituras 1569, the Spanish Reina Valera 1909, 1960, 1995, Italian Diodati 1602, French Louis Segond, Portuguese Almeida, the NKJV 1982, RSV 1952, NRSV 1989, the Jewish translations of 1917 and 1936, the 1998 Complete Jewish Bible, the new Judaica Press Complete Tanach, the Hebrew Names Bible, Rotherham's Emphasized Bible 1902, Webster's 1833 translation, the New English Bible 1970, the New Jerusalem Bible 1985, the Amplified Bible 1987, KJV 21st Century, and the Third Millenium Bible all say Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign.

The inspired Hebrew text clearly says Ahaziah was 42 years old. The masoretic scribes were very scrupulous in copying their sacred trust. No word or number was written from memory but each word was carefully checked before he recopied it. The copies were checked and checked again and if there were a single error, the whole was discarded and and new one begun.

God promised to preserve His words. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. When our Lord mentions the jots and tittles He is speaking of the Hebrew language.

The King James Bible Old Testament is solely based on the Hebrew text. All modern versions depart from the Hebrew text in numerous places. Versions like the NIV, RSV, ESV, Holman Standard, NRSV, and Daniel Wallace's NET version even tell you this in their footnotes. The NASB rejects the Hebrew text in at least 40 places too, but it doesn't let you know this. You have to consult other versions and compare them to find this out.

The NASB, ESV, Holman Standard, Wallace's NET version, and NIV change the number 42 to 22 on the basis of the Syriac and some LXX copies. The NIV, NET, and Holman Standard footnote says: "Some Septuagint manuscripts and Syriac read 22; the Hebrew says 42".

The Septuagint version I have says 20 years old, not 22 nor 42.

Not only do the NASB and NIV change the Hebrew text here and say 22 rather than 42, but so also do Young's, Darby's, the Bible in Basic English, the 2001 English Standard Version, the Living Bible, the Holman CSB, and the New Living translation.

There is a solution to this apparent contradiction.

Sad to say, almost every Bible commentator I consulted caves in at this point and tells the reader that a scribal error has been made in all the hundreds of Hebrew copies. This is why I do not trust any Bible commentary as my final authority. What one commentator affirms another one just as adamantly denies. Surprisingly, the only one I found that actually offers a reasonable explanation of the two passages without calling into question the Hebrew texts is Dr. Lightfoot. He says: " Forty and two years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign--(Compare 2Ki 8:26). According to that passage, the commencement of his reign is dated in the twenty-second year of his age, and, according to this, in the forty-second year of the kingdom of his mother's family [LIGHTFOOT]."

Jehu was appointed by God to cut off the house of Ahab. Ahab was the king of Israel, not of Judah. But Ahaziah was related to Ahab by marriage because his father Jehoram "walked in the way of the kings of Israel, like as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE HAD THE DAUGHTER OF AHAB TO WIFE: and he wrought that which was evil in the eyes of the LORD" 2 Chronicles 21:6.

In 2 Chronicles 22:7 we read: "And the destruction of Ahaziah was of God by coming to Joram: for when he was come, he went out with Jehoram against JEHU the son of Nimshi, WHOM THE LORD HAD ANOINTED TO CUT OFF THE HOUSE OF AHAB.

Ahaziah was son- in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son -in- law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab.

When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab.

The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side.

When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father.

22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab.

Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram and died childless is excluded from this equation because he was not related in a father to son relationship with either Jehoram of Israel or Ahaziah of Judah. He had no children.

Furthermore, the two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by both Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel.

When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made coregent. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel."

The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle so Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign. However this Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.

2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Aahaziah began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year.

We see that Ahaziah was coregent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was coregent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of father's and sons who have offspring which reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah.

Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahazhiah.

The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah.

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.

The new version editors like Gleason Archer, and many Christian apologetic web sites say, “This is a scribal error.” They are clearly wrong and are guilty of unbelief and using human reasoning when dealing with the infallible words of the living God. I believe God has preserved his words without error, and we have those inspired words today in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney

CoreIssue
01-02-2007, 10:33 AM
I don't see your answer to my simple and central questions and points.

Just one here. NAME that perfect Bible that was used before 1611.

Just give me the name here. Nothing more. Name it.

Chrystalwuzhere
01-07-2007, 01:58 PM
Hi, Will! :doofy:

Sorry I didn't respond to you until now, but I started a new job this week, and that has kept me extremely busy.



How Old Was Ahaziah, 22 or 42?

This is an apparent contradiction that frequently is thrown in the face of Christians who believe we have an inspired Bible. Many Atheist, Islam and Bible dubunker sites bring up this example. Sad to say, most of the “Christian” apologetic sites which promote the new bible versions cave in here and say the number 42 is a copyist error.

It is.



Here is a typical response by those Christians who use and promote the modern versions. This one comes from Techtonics Apologetics. This “defender of the faith” answers: “ Was Ahaziah forty-two or twenty-two (per 2 Kings 8:26) when he ascended the throne? More likely 22, and 2 Chronicles has been hit by a copyist error. See our foundational essay on copyist errors for general background. In favor of the "22" reading in 2 Chronicles: The 2 Kings reading; some LXX and Syriac manuscripts.

This typical Christian response is not limited to this one example, but in many objections brought up by the infidels or the curious, this same rote answer is given - "There is a copyist error". There is a typo in God’s book. The skeptics laugh and the modern version proponent looks like a fool.


In your opinion they look like a fool. KJVO proponents are the ones who have to scurry and find extravagant and far-fetched answers to explain errors in the KJV. We know the answers to the questions, and accept that the KJV has flaws. You do not, so you pull, stretch, and skewer the version to explain these flaws. You reason it away.

Why are you going to attribute flawlessness to a version of the Bible that not even the translators themselves would call flawless and without fault?

You are not loyal to the Word of God. You are loyal to the King James Version.

God promised to preserve His words. The Lord Jesus Christ said: "For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." Matthew 5:18. When our Lord mentions the jots and tittles He is speaking of the Hebrew language.

Jesus was talking about the law, and His commission and purpose on earth in this verse. So many people take this verse out of context and say that Jesus was saying that He was going to preserve the 1611 KJV of the Bible.

The 1611 KJV is a VERSION. Okay? It says so right in the title. What about God's word for the 1610 years before the KJV? What about the early church? They did not have the KJV.



Ahaziah was son- in-law of the house of Ahab. 2 Kings 8:26 -27 "Two and twenty years old was Ahaziah when he began to reign: and he reigned one year in Jerusalem. And his mother's name was Athaliah, THE DAUGHTER (grand-daughter) OF OMRI KING OF ISRAEL. And he walked in the way of the house of Ahab, and did evil in the sight of the LORD, as did the house of Ahab: FOR HE WAS THE SON IN LAW OF THE HOUSE OF AHAB." Ahaziah is counted as a son -in- law to Ahab, even though it was his father who had married into the house of Ahab, and not Ahaziah himself.

Ahaziah was thus related by marriage to the house of Ahab through the marriage of his father with Athaliah the daughter of Ahab.

When it says in 2 Chronicles 22:2 that Ahaziah was 42 years old when he began to reign, this refers to his age as the last member of the reigning dynasty of the house of Ahab.

The house of Ahab began, of course, with Ahab who reigned for 22 years and his son Jehoram was in his twelfth and final year at the time Ahaziah began to reign. 22 + 12 = 34. This would be the house of Ahab on the king's of Israel side.

When we look at the house of Ahab on the king's of Judah side and we come up with an additional 8 years reign as king on the part of Jehoram, Ahaziah's father.

22 + 12 + 8 = 42. This is the age of Ahaziah as a member of the extended reign of the house of Ahab.

Ahab's other son, Ahaziah, who reigned for 2 years before Jehoram and died childless is excluded from this equation because he was not related in a father to son relationship with either Jehoram of Israel or Ahaziah of Judah. He had no children.

Furthermore, the two years of Ahaziah, Ahab's son, are overlapped on one side by both Ahab his father and on the other by Jehoram his brother. 1 Kings 22:41 tells us that "Jehosaphat the son of Asa began to reign over Judah in the fourth year of Ahab king of Israel." Ahab reigned for 22 years, so at the time Jehosaphat begins to reign, Ahab has 18 more years to go as king of Israel.

When Ahab goes out to battle the Syrians, his son Ahaziah is made coregent. 1 Kings 22:51 tells us "Ahaziah the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the seventeenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned two years over Israel."

The 17th year of Jehoshaphat would overlap Ahab's 22nd and final year. Ahab dies in battle so Ahaziah, his son, continues to reign. However this Ahaziah soon falls down through a lattice in his upper chamber and was sick with a disease that finally killed him.

2 Kings 3:1 tells us: "Now Jehoram the son of Ahab began to reign over Israel in Samaria the eighteenth year of Jehoshaphat king of Judah, and reigned twelve years." Notice that Aahaziah began to reign in Jehoshaphat's 17th year, reigns 2 years, and Jehoram begins to reign in Jehoshaphat's 18th year.

We see that Ahaziah was coregent to his father Ahab for one year and Jehoram, his brother, was coregent to Ahaziah for one year during his sickness. Looked at in this way, his two year reign is overlapped by both that of his father and his brother. We are left then with the 22 years of Ahab, 12 years of Jehoram of Ahab and the additional 8 years of Jehoram of Judah which again totals 42 years of father's and sons who have offspring which reign till the time of Ahaziah of Judah.

Ahab's reign of 22 years does not overlap the 12 years of his son Jehoram. Likewise the one year of Ahaziah, king of Judah, does not overlap the reign of his father Jehoram. 2 Chronicles tells us that the band of men that came with the Arabians had slain all the eldest sons, so the only one left to sit on the throne was the youngest son, Ahazhiah.

The house of Ahab was then cut off by Jehu when he killed both Jehoram of Israel and Ahaziah of Judah. Athaliah, that wicked queen, destroyed the rest of the seed royal of the house of Judah, except the baby Joash who was stolen away and hid for six years while Athaliah reigned. The continuous reign of successive "sons" of the house of Ahab ceased with the death of Jehoram and Ahaziah.

Have you ever tried to take a piece of saran wrap that was too small, and stretch it over the top of a bowl. You've gotta stretch, pull, prod, and jam to get it to fit. That's what all of this is. It takes an awful lot of pulling and stretching to make something go where it simply does not fit!

Ahaziah was 42 years old as the final member of the house of Ahab, but only 22 years old physically as a son of Jehoram.

Except, that's not what it says. In plain (or Old) English it says, he was 42 and 22 years old "when he began to reign." I read the Bible for what it says. Nothing else. I believe, and I know you believe, it should be read and taken literally, right? So why can't you read it literally now instead of going in circles to make it say something it does not say? I think it is because to be a KJV onlyist, you can't. You can only take it literally when not dealing with errors.

The new version editors like Gleason Archer, and many Christian apologetic web sites say, “This is a scribal error.” They are clearly wrong and are guilty of unbelief and using human reasoning when dealing with the infallible words of the living God. I believe God has preserved his words without error, and we have those inspired words today in the King James Bible.

Will Kinney (emphasis mine)

To charge someone as you have above is ungenerous, and unloving; and it is a judgment that is too far above your payscale to make, as Sid would say. People who read modern versions, myself included, love the Lord as much as you do. We are not guilty of unbelief because we do so.

I have a friend from Portugal. She told me that when the Bible is translated into her language, it is not the King James Version that they receive. It is the Bible translated into their own language. By your arguments, their Bibles are not inspired, and they are guilty of unbelief because they read them. Yet, many, many millions have and are being saved, and are growing.