# KJV Today



## MW (Aug 27, 2014)

I don't know who is behind this website:

King James Version Today

But while my work computer was out of action I took some time this morning to read through a number of the articles, and I have to say that the author takes the time to explain matters in the plainest way possible, and it seems to be free from the KJV-only rhetoric which one finds on other sites. I understand that the anti-KJV people will pass it off as more fideism, but for those genuinely interested in looking at the merits of the AV this appears to contain very useful material.


----------



## Afterthought (Aug 27, 2014)

Thanks. I had been wondering if there was another explanation for the second Cainan in Luke, and I was going to start a thread on it when I had time, but here is another explanation now!

Should Cainan be in the genealogy in Luke 3:36? - King James Version Today
"It is perfectly understandable why the genealogy of Luke includes a name that never appeared in any Jewish genealogy, including Genesis, Chronicles and Josephus. Previous Jewish genealogies focused on biological sonship. However, the genealogy of Luke clearly focuses on sonship by adoption. Luke 3:23 says that Jesus was “the son of Joseph” despite Joseph having no biological connection to Jesus. Jesus was the adopted son of Joseph. Luke 3:23 also says that Joseph "was the son of Heli” (literally "was of Heli") despite Joseph being the biological son of Jacob (Matthew 1:16). Heli was actually the father of Mary, Joseph’s wife. Thus, Joseph was the adopted son (son in law) of Heli. If this pattern continues in the genealogy, it would not be surprising to find an adopted son who had previously been omitted from biological genealogies. Thus, we can reasonably accept that Cainan was the adopted son of Arphaxad, and that Cainan raised Sala, who was the biological son of Arphaxad. The Masoretic text is not in error because its genealogies in Genesis and Chronicles focus on biological sonship."

I had not heard this explanation before (Of course, I'll have to think about it some). Most of the places I've looked have said Cainan is spurious or Cainan fills a gap in the genealogy, or that Luke was deliberately following an incorrect but popular genealogy at the time.


----------



## Rob Marsh (Aug 28, 2014)

Interestingly enough, last night during family worship I couldn't locate my ESV so I used a handy KJV for reading to the kids about Joseph from Genesis, and couldn't help but notice how odd it was to be reading about "corn" in Egypt, which I'm pretty sure wasn't around in the middle east back then. Minor translational difference, sure, but still mighty strange, and in a way distracting, as I starting thinking about Joseph and his brothers eating tortillas and salsa in Egypt...


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian (Aug 28, 2014)

It is worth noting that outside the America's it was/is common for "corn" to be a general word that covers any cereal grain.


----------



## chuckd (Aug 28, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I don't know who is behind this website:
> 
> King James Version Today
> 
> But while my work computer was out of action I took some time this morning to read through a number of the articles, and I have to say that the author takes the time to explain matters in the plainest way possible, and it seems to be free from the KJV-only rhetoric which one finds on other sites. I understand that the anti-KJV people will pass it off as more fideism, but for those genuinely interested in looking at the merits of the AV this appears to contain very useful material.



Excellent! Thanks for posting.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 28, 2014)

I could not identify those behind the site from its DNS registration records. I do see some connection between the site and this one:

Main Page - Textus Receptus

In that the wiki site appears to reference it often and in 2011 posted a Facebook entry noting that KJV Today had changed its link to the one Rev. Winzer posted. Apparently it has been around a few years.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2014)

Afterthought said:


> I had not heard this explanation before (Of course, I'll have to think about it some). Most of the places I've looked have said Cainan is spurious or Cainan fills a gap in the genealogy, or that Luke was deliberately following an incorrect but popular genealogy at the time.



This explanation has the merit of allowing "Cainan" to serve the genealogy in a relevant way. The other explanations tend to treat it as second or third level error and make "Cainan" redundant.

The idea that Luke's genealogy serves a different function has been a traditional way of explaining the variations between Matthew and Luke.


----------



## MW (Aug 28, 2014)

Ask Mr. Religion said:


> Main Page - Textus Receptus



If this is so, the new site is definitely an improvement in presentation and order.


----------



## Ask Mr. Religion (Aug 29, 2014)

I contacted Will Kinney (brandplucked) via email and he responded that the person behind the KJV Today site lives in Canada and is very private preferring not to sign his name to any of the materials.


----------



## Free Christian (Aug 29, 2014)

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> It is worth noting that outside the America's it was/is common for "corn" to be a general word that covers any cereal grain.


 Years ago someone pointed out to me the corn dilemma and I found out not long after too that it was a common term as you have posted.


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 29, 2014)

Free Christian said:


> Backwoods Presbyterian said:
> 
> 
> > It is worth noting that outside the America's it was/is common for "corn" to be a general word that covers any cereal grain.
> ...



Yes there are a few which people use to try and say that the KJB has serious translational errors, cattle doesn't just mean cows & bulls but also


> The cattle family also includes the sheep, goats, goat-antelopes, and antelopes



then there is the "fabled" Unicorn which just happens to be a single Horned Rhinoceros or unicornis as apposed to the 
dual horned Rhinoceros or or bicornis. Unicorns in the Bible? this video will show what a Biblical Rhinoceros is though I don't agree with him saying the KJB has errors.


----------



## PaulMc (Aug 29, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I don't know who is behind this website:
> 
> King James Version Today
> 
> But while my work computer was out of action I took some time this morning to read through a number of the articles, and I have to say that the author takes the time to explain matters in the plainest way possible, and it seems to be free from the KJV-only rhetoric which one finds on other sites. I understand that the anti-KJV people will pass it off as more fideism, but for those genuinely interested in looking at the merits of the AV this appears to contain very useful material.



Thanks, this looks like a very helpful and useful site.

However, I did see this:
'This website refutes over 150 allegations of errors to show that the KJV is demonstrably inerrant.'

I use the AV but it seems to me to be a bit extreme to claim that there are no translation errors anywhere at all?


----------



## One Little Nail (Aug 29, 2014)

If there were any they would be very minor due to the use of multiple committees during the Translation process, there are 2 types of alleged errors among others, printing errors & supposed Translational ones, the former are no error's at all in that they have no relation to the Translation at all, that is they can't be classed as error's as they are something not relative to the Translation at all but are external & the later ones are many that are spurious consisting of things like as what I've mentioned above in Post #11 , 
also the translation philosophy has been blamed like the retention of the Old Ecclesiastical words, & *archaic* words, which are a *Literary * device, amongst other things.


----------



## MW (Aug 29, 2014)

PaulMc said:


> However, I did see this:
> 'This website refutes over 150 allegations of errors to show that the KJV is demonstrably inerrant.'
> 
> I use the AV but it seems to me to be a bit extreme to claim that there are no translation errors anywhere at all?



I had the same reservations, but the word "demonstrably" is made to qualify the "inerrancy." It might relate to general meaning rather than verbal specificity, which is basically what the Puritans argued against Romanists. E.g., Christopher Fowler says in the Morning Exercises, "Object. II. 'Your translations are faulty.' (Harding, Rhemists.) Answer. "This is said a thousand times, but never proved; an untruth, joined with slander;" so Jewel -- "a spiteful lie;" so Cartwright -- answers the Jesuits. "Show them," saith he. "Dr. Martin did attempt it, but was laughed at for his folly by his friend. The words may be short, but the sense is incorrupt." (Puritan Sermons, 5:589).


----------



## Logan (Aug 29, 2014)

armourbearer said:


> I understand that the anti-KJV people will pass it off as more fideism



"Charity...thinketh no evil;"

Thanks for the link.


----------



## MW (Aug 30, 2014)

Logan said:


> armourbearer said:
> 
> 
> > I understand that the anti-KJV people will pass it off as more fideism
> ...



I didn't think up the evil. That is what anti-KJV people explicitly say.


----------

