Question
Whenever I read ‘KJV-Only’ articles, they usually criticize other versions by pointing out wording differences between the version in question and the King James Version (KJV). Of course, this presupposes that the KJV is the inspired infallible Word of God. Thus, any differences that exist are automatically errors of the version in question. This is like saying, “I’m right so wherever we differ can only mean you’re wrong.” This is of course flawed logic, to say the least.
If the KJV is indeed the fulfillment of God’s promise to preserve His word and keep it incorruptible, then the KJV must be completely without error and infallible. This is quite a definitive statement to make about any translation! God brought them out of Egypt; he hath as it were the strength of an unicorn. (Numbers 23:22 KJV; see also; Numbers 24:8, Deuteronomy 33:17, Job 39:9 and 39:10, Psalms 22:21, 29:6 and 92:10, Isaiah 34:7) Do you believe in unicorns? What about satyrs (Isaiah 13:21 and 34:14 KJV)? Aren’t these mythical creatures of pagan origin?
If the KJV is indeed the fulfillment of God’s promise to preserve His word and keep it incorruptible, then the KJV must be completely without error and infallible. This is quite a definitive statement to make about any translation!
Response
First off, let me say that for many years I too held much the same view you hold and said much the same things. Yet after a number of years of examining the issue on my own, I became convinced that I was wrong and I ended up changing my mind. To my own complete satisfaction, I am now fully persuaded that God indeed has perfectly preserved His word, and that exact translations of it into other languages can be made, and that in the English language this has been done in the King James Version. Now I say “to my own complete satisfaction I am fully persuaded” that this is so. And I underscore this to emphasize that this is a matter of personal persuasion with me. It stems from all the evidence that I have examined over the years, both within the Bible itself and otherwise. Hence, whether anyone else is likewise persuaded is not the issue with me. I simply set forth my understanding on our web site primarily to let people know what my viewpoint is regarding God’s word, so that they know in advance what kind of person they are dealing with should they obtain any of our materials.
Regarding your first question, yes, I do believe in unicorns. Though not necessarily the horse like ones commonly pictured and thought of as unicorns. My understanding is that the beasts called unicorns by the King James translators are quite different. Not horse like at all, and that they knew this to be so. I am persuaded that this is so particularly from the passage in Job, and from the fact that the word ‘unicorn’ in English (and its equivalent in Greek and other languages) was also commonly used as the name for one or more of the species of what we call rhinoceros. In English this was common even into the 18th century. So I am persuaded that these kinds of unicorns are the ones to which the King James translators refer.
With regards to the satyrs of Isaiah 13 and 34, I am likewise persuaded that the satyrs of idolatry are not necessarily what is in view or denoted by the King James translators. For again the word satyrs was also formerly used to denote real wild beasts, especially what we now call the Orangutan. This was done in zoological descriptions and designations into the 19th century. Such satyrs belong to the wild beasts of the islands, and I am persuaded that these are the satyrs denoted by the King James translators.
Keith Blades
Enjoy The Bible Ministries
20020518 A60 B kjv