Do we have more corrupted verses? Let’s plunge into the Deeper Waters and find out.
So as we continue our look at KJV-onlyism, we’re responding to this work. I plan to respond to more than one question today. First, let’s start with one that deals with the virgin birth, which I do affirm.
The answer, of course, is that God was Jesus’ father. Let’s look in a ‘modern’ version of the Bible, at Luke 2:33.
Starting in Luke 2:27 Simeon has gone into the temple to see the baby Jesus (who is with Joseph and Mary). Again, depending on the particular ‘modern’ version, in verse 33, it will say something similar to:
” … and his FATHER and mother were amazed at the things which were spoken of him” [i.e. of Jesus].
What do you mean “… and his father …” was amazed at the things which were spoken of him?! Jesus’ father was NOT Joseph! Jesus’ father was God!
Now, let’s look in the Authorized King James Bible. The KJV has the correct reading; in Luke 2:33 it says:
“And JOSEPH and his mother marvelled at those things which were spoken of him“.
For a ‘modern’ version ( NIV, NASV, RSV etc.) to say Joseph was Jesus’ father is blasphemy! Think about the doctrinal implications: If Jesus had only an earthly father and mother, then he is just any man. If he is just any man, then we are still in our sins. If we are still in our sins, then we are not saved! If we are not saved, then we have a big problem!
Here! Here! Indeed! How can we indicate in any way that Joseph is the father of Jesus?! Of course, God is His Father! Absolutely! To the flames then with any translation, or should I say transgression, that says that Joseph is the Father of Jesus!
Look at Luke 2:48.
And when they saw him, they were amazed: and his mother said unto him, Son, why hast thou thus dealt with us? behold, thy father and I have sought thee sorrowing.
And that is in the KJV!
How dare they! Surely Mary who had the virgin birth, which I do affirm, would know who the father of Jesus is! How dare she not say Joseph! That would mean Jesus is just an ordinary man and we are still in our sins! We have a big problem!
How dare the KJV deny the virgin birth! (Which I do affirm)
Now let’s go to a common type of objection.
Turn to Matthew 18:11. You may have a hard time finding this verse. In many new, ‘modern’, versions this verse is missing! The verses are numbered 10 then 12, 13, 14! Or you may find verse 11 is in brackets, casting doubt as to whether it is scriptural.
Let’s see what the Authorized King James says:
“For the Son of man is come TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS LOST.”
This one verse, which summarizes Jesus’ entire mission to earth, is either ignored in ‘new’ versions; or it is put in brackets casting doubt on it! This verse contains a KEY piece of Christian doctrine.
People have to know they are lost, i.e. that they have a problem, to know they need a saviour.
This is a common problem with KJV-Onlyists. They look at the KJV as the perfect and then if there is any difference between the KJV and a modern translation, well the problem is the modern translation because they removed that verse. How do we know the verse was in the original? Because it’s in the KJV and that’s the perfect version!
Never mind that this passage is paralleled in Luke 19:10 which does have the Son of Man coming to seek and to save that which was lost. If this was a conspiracy of some sort, you would think that one would also be removed. So why would this not be in a manuscript?
Odds are that many a scribe could copy from memory, perhaps from hearing a verse read in the worship service, and when he copies Matthew, he automatically fills in that part. Another possibility is sometimes sidenotes would be written and this could be one and sometimes that would be included in later copies. How do we know what the original most likely said? Because we have enough copies that we can cross-reference them. If you want a good reference book on textual criticism, I recommend this one.
Thus far, two questions answered. Nothing convincing. Just shoddy research on the part of KJV-Onlyists.
(And I affirm the virgin birth)