Let the Minutiae Speak
The place of genealogies, numbers, and parallel passages in the King James only debate
“Things that are different are not the same.” So says the title of Mickey Carter’s book advocating the exclusive use of the King James Bible. This sentiment is a fair summary of the mindset of most King James only (KJO) advocates. The differences between Bible versions demand a judgment. Which Bible is right?
Troubled by differing Bible versions, many sincere Christians seek for answers. One side affirms that no doctrine is affected by the relatively minor differences between Bible versions. The message is the same, but finer points and particular details may be slightly different. A typical KJO position jumps in and says this can’t be right. Verbal inspiration is useless without the preservation of those very words of God. In fact, we need to know each and every word, in order to live (Matt. 4:4). All differences, even word order and spelling differences, matter (Matt. 5:18). Differing versions cannot both claim to be translations of the perfect, inspired Word of God.
On the face of it, the KJO argument makes sense. When we’re speaking about the Bible, shouldn’t every little difference matter? Some respond with manuscript evidence that calls into question the choice of the King James Bible as a perfect standard. Others have shown that the various proof texts for word perfect preservation don’t actually promise a single, identifiable, word-perfect copy of the Bible. And prior to 1611, where was such a copy to be found, anyway?
In this paper, I want to take us down a road less traveled. Rather than looking for a proof text which directly deals with this controversy, I aim to scour the King James Bible itself for examples of the very differences which are said to matter so much. The minor points of Scripture itself, the minutia, should be allowed to speak to this issue. Genealogies, lists, numbers, and parallel passages all have an important bearing on how we should think about “things that are different.”
Genealogies
Few passages of Scripture are more consistently skimmed or avoided than genealogies. We get lost in hard-to-pronounce names and find the contents quite boring. We do assume that they were accurately recorded and are without error. Upon closer inspection however, the genealogies sometimes reveal an alarming amount of variation.
1 Chronicles chapter 1 compiles a variety of genealogies from different parts of Genesis. In the first 37 verses, we find 135 names. Twenty of them are spelled differently. Some people are omitted (like the sons of Dedan vs. 32-33 - Gen. 25:2-4), and others are redefined. Aram’s sons become Shem’s sons (vs. 17 - Gen. 25:22-23), and a concubine turns into a son (Timna, vs. 36 - Gen. 36:10-12). The most important difference is revealed by cross-referencing Luke 3:36 and noticing its inclusion of an additional name (Cainan) not recorded in Genesis or 1 Chronicles (although it is found in the Greek OT translation, v. 24 - Gen. 11:11-13).
Other genealogies show similar differences. Ezra 7:1-5 compared to 1 Chron. 6:1-15 reveals a gap of 5 or 6 generations. Even Jesus’ two genealogies differ significantly. Matt. 1 traces the line of David’s son Solomon, whereas Luke 3 uses David’s son Nathan. Luke’s list contains an additional 14 generations between David and Jesus.
Lists
Other lists of names contain similar problems to the genealogies. Given the stress we hear about word-perfect preservation, wouldn’t it be natural to expect that two lists of David’s mighty men would be identical? Instead, when one compares the lists in 2 Sam. 23 and 1 Chron. 11, several strange variations are found. The chief of the captains, the number one guy isn’t given a consistent name, and he doesn’t kill the same number of people with his spear. Is he “the Tachmonite” named as “Adino the Eznite” (he is said to have killed 800 at one time) or “Jashobeam, an Hachmonite” (who killed 300)? Shammah defends a field of lentils in Samuel, and another guy Eleazar defends a field of barley in Chronicles (Shammah doesn’t appear in that list). Seven guys in Samuel don’t have a counterpart in Chronicles. Six guys in Chronicles don’t have an equal in Samuel. And the men who are on both lists rarely have the same name and title (or lineage). To top it off, after Uriah the Hittite’s important spot at the bottom of Samuel’s list, the Chronicles list goes on to add another 16 heroes.
An even more perplexing list comes from Ezra 2 and Nehemiah 7. A count is given of all the people from various families who returned to Jerusalem. What’s striking here is how different the numbers are.
Family Group | Ezra 2 | Nehemiah 7 |
Children of Arah | 652 | 775 |
Children of Pahathmoab, Jeshua & Joab | 2818 | 2812 |
Children of Zattu | 845 | 945 |
Children of Binnui | 648 | 642 |
Children of Bebai | 628 | 623 |
Children of Azgad | 2322 | 1222 |
Children of Adonikam | 667 | 666 |
Children of Bigvai | 2067 | 2056 |
Children of Adin | 655 | 454 |
Children of Hashum | 228 | 223 |
Children of Bezai | 324 | 323 |
Men of Bethel & Ai | 123 | 223 |
Children of Lod, Hadid & Ono | 721 | 725 |
Children of Senaah | 3930 | 3630 |
The singers: (of Asaph) | 148 | 128 |
Porters | 138 | 139 |
Children of Delaiah, Tobiah & Nekoda | 642 | 652 |
Singing men and women | 245 | 200 |
Numbers
The list above moved us into the realm of numerical difficulties. Anyone familiar with the accounts of the Israelite kings may have an inkling of what’s ahead.
My first encounter with numerical differences came in high school. I noticed the differing census figures given for David’s numbering of the people in 2 Sam. 24 and 1 Chron. 21. One account gives 800,000 soldiers for Israel and 500,000 for Judah, whereas the other account gives 1,100,000 for Israel and 470,000 for Judah. I studied the passage more closely and found further discrepancies. David is given a choice of 7 years of famine in Samuel, but 3 in Chronicles. He pays 50 shekels for the threshing floor of Araunah in one account and 600 shekels to Ornan in the other. And to top it all off, God moves David to number the people in one text, while Satan provokes David to sin in the other. My teacher (who was a fan of Peter Ruckman), didn’t have a good answer. He later came up with a confusing explanation involving quite a bit of biblical numerology if I remember right.
The following table shows some additional numerical discrepancies. Some of this discussion is adapted from a paper entitled “Large Numbers in the Old Testament” (Tyndale Bulletin, 1967) by J.W. Wenham.
Figure 1 | Figure 2 | Variation Type |
40,000 ” stalls of horses for his chariots ” (1 Kings 4:26) | 4,000 “stalls for horses and chariots ” (2 Chron. 9:25) | Zero dropped out (symbols likely used similar to zeroes) |
700 horsemen (2 Sam. 8:4) | 7,000 horsemen (1 Chron. 18:4) | Zero dropped out |
Jehoichin begins reign at age 18 (2 Kings 24:8) | Jehoichin begins reign at age 8 (2 Chron.36:9) | Digit dropped out |
“40,000 horsemen” | “40,000 footmen” | Noun attached to the number was changed |
2,000 baths – size of the brass sea (I Kings 7:26) | 3,000 baths – size of the brass sea (2 Chron. 4:5) | Number changed by one unit (a ten, hundred or thousand) |
Pillars 18 cubits high | Pillars 35 cubits high | No correlation between the numbers |
23,000 killed (Numb. 25:9) | 24,000 killed (1 Cor. 10:8) | Different source used (Greek or some other translation??) |
70 people went to Egypt (Gen. 46:27) | 75 people went to Egypt (Acts 7:14) | Various explanations provided |
Sum of the number of vessels listed = 2499 | The stated total of vessels | Sum of individual items in a list don’t equal the said total |
Parallel passages
Everyone is somewhat familiar with the synoptic problem. The words of Jesus and the sequence of His travels are presented differently in each of the four Gospels. Sometimes different sayings can be harmonized (a supposed original statement can account for each of the different quotations given by the Gospel authors). Other times such a solution doesn’t seem to work. Even when we come up with a plausible explanation for differing words in a quotation, we have no way of knowing the true chronology. For example, in which order did Jesus’ three temptations come? Matthew’s or Luke’s?
This problem is not unique to the New Testament Gospels, however. There are actually two sets of “the 10 commandments” (see Ex. 20 and Deut. 5) with considerable differences.
Perhaps the most extensive OT parallel passage is the account of the Assyrian siege of Jerusalem as found in 2 Kings 18-20 and Isaiah 36-38. These two passages contain 12 speeches, mostly of Rabshekah, Hezekiah and Isaiah. The speeches cover just 51 verses (by Isaiah’s record), yet we find considerable discrepancies. Remember, the following differences are from recorded speeches, not the author’s description of the narrative.
The speeches are almost identical most of the time, but there is considerable variation. The Isaiah account omits 85 words, adds 20 words, rearranges the order 8 times, and replaces a word with a similar word 55 times. This does not count the ending of the final speech (Isaiah 38:7-8), which is a complete recasting of 2 Kings 20:8-11 (the narrative is condensed and given as a quotation).
Before we finish this look at parallel passages in the Bible, we will need to address the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament. According to John Battle of Western Reformed Seminary, there are conservatively 295 explicit references to the Old Testament. These quotations occupy 352 verses, equal in size to the book of Romans. Ninety-four verses from the Pentateuch, 99 from the prophets and 85 from the writings are quoted by the New Testament. (See chapter 5 of Battle’s syllabus for his course on Biblical Interpretation.)
The following chart is but the tip of the iceberg. Examining the passages listed will reveal numerous slight differences between the KJB OT and NT. Many times the differences stem from the NT agreeing more closely with the Greek OT translation. I recommend looking at R. Grant Jones’ extensive and accessible study of all the NT quotations of the OT (insert link: http://mysite.verizon.net/rgjones3/Septuagint/spexecsum.htm). He demonstrates conclusively that the Greek OT translation is predominantly followed by the NT authors.
NT passage
OT passage
Observations
Matt. 27:9-10
Zech. 11:12-13 (with some words from Jer. 19:1-13)
This text is said to be from Jeremy the prophet but more closely aligns with Zechariah
Matt. 21:16
Ps. 8:2
Agrees with Greek OT
Heb. 10:5-7
Ps. 40:6-8
Agrees with Greek OT
John 19:37
Zech. 12:10
Agrees with Hebrew
Mk. 12:29-30
Dt. 6:4-5
Greek = mind, soul, strength
Hebrew = heart, soul, might
NT = heart, soul, mind, strength
Rom. 12:19
Dt. 32:35
Differs from both Greek + Hebrew
Conclusion
We have only begun to uncover the minor differences in numbers, names and parallel accounts in the Bible. Enough variations have been exposed however, to force us all to grapple with this problem. Just how are we to explain such differences?
The KJO adherents have to defend each and every difference as best they can. The opposing point of view however, can allow for some copyist errors in the manuscripts. They are also at liberty to look for solutions in other ancient manuscripts or versions (Greek, Latin, etc.). Ultimately, our faith in the clear statements of God’s Word will keep us from becoming skeptics. The Bible clearly affirms its own inspiration, perfection and inerrancy. Faith leads us to believe the original copies of Scripture were perfect. We may not know the answer, but an answer does exist.
We can learn something else from this study, too. The Bible itself does not measure up to the word perfect standards of King James-onlyism. If absolute certainty of the specific wording of a text is required to have an authoritative Bible, the King James Bible itself doesn’t measure up.
Matthew Poole’s commentary from 1685 contains a similar observation: “This custom of the New Testament… to quote texts out of the Old Testament, very often according to that Septuagint (Greek) translation… may learn us not to be too curious as to minute things in Scripture, for had it been a thing of moment, the Holy Spirit of God had certainly never suffered [it]” (e-sword module version of Annotations on the Holy Bible by Matthew Poole).
May we all learn not to “be too curious as to minute things in Scripture.” God has seen fit to inspire “things that are different.” In His wisdom, these differences may prove to increase our faith. I trust they will teach us to be more charitable of Christians who make use of varying Bible versions.
Bob has a BA in Pastoral Theology with a Greek emphasis and a MA in Bible from Fairhaven Baptist College and Seminary in Chesterton, IN. He currently works in technical sales support for Boston Scientific, and actively serves at Beacon of Hope Church, St. Paul. Since 2005, he has been blogging theology at www.fundamentallyreformed.com. He founded KJVOnlyDebate.com and can be found as well at Re-Fundamentals.org and CrossFocusedReviews.com.
- 72 views
But you’re right, MS, we can’t wish these problems away (although we’re tempted to). But for a position that isn’t beholden to a word-perfect copy of Scripture in my hand today, the problem isn’t as large as it is for the consistent KJV Onlyist. By faith I believe answers are to be had for these problems, and some of those answers could be copyist errors and the failure of an intimate knowledge of the precise Hebrew numerical system to be preserved intact to our day.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
Also, I think Bob Hayton should be sentenced to mandatory attendance to the next King James Baptist Conference for publishing such thoughts.
:bigsmile:
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
[Chip Van Emmerik] Brandon, just curious. Would your ministry participate in helping Mormon or Catholic churches establish youth ministries? The thread discussing KJVOism as heresy juxtaposes with your question.Chip, that’s a very troubling question. Titus 3:10 comes to mind in response, in it’s fuller meaning, involving both false teaching and division.
My answer to that would be two-fold, if I were asked:
1). The Gospel is not directly compromised by the KJVO heresy.
2). If we adopt premise 1, then I would suggest that, in accord with Titus 3:10, anything is an eduation issue until you run up against hardened hearts.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Mike Durning] My answer to that would be two-fold, if I were asked:Good thoughts, Mike. I agree.
1). The Gospel is not directly compromised by the KJVO heresy.
2). If we adopt premise 1, then I would suggest that, in accord with Titus 3:10, anything is an eduation issue until you run up against hardened hearts.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Mike Durning]I’m well acquainted with the various forms of the KJO belief thanks to the various churches I’ve been to or been in fellowship with. I have come across many people who believe that the KJV is required for salvation. In other words, if I read the NIV or the NASB or even the NKJV and got convicted of my sin and made a profession of faith. it wasn’t a real conversion. It needed to occur from a KJB. So, in saying that I think it can in various forms compromise the gospel.[Chip Van Emmerik] Brandon, just curious. Would your ministry participate in helping Mormon or Catholic churches establish youth ministries? The thread discussing KJVOism as heresy juxtaposes with your question.Chip, that’s a very troubling question. Titus 3:10 comes to mind in response, in it’s fuller meaning, involving both false teaching and division.
My answer to that would be two-fold, if I were asked:
1). The Gospel is not directly compromised by the KJVO heresy.
2). If we adopt premise 1, then I would suggest that, in accord with Titus 3:10, anything is an eduation issue until you run up against hardened hearts.
I have come across many people who believe that the KJV is required for salvation.Now that is heresy.
The kind of KJVO that does not make that claim, does not teach a disorted view of inspiration and does not preach that all non-KJVOs are unChristian (etc) is not worthy of the name “heresy” at all.
Just want to again, urge folks not to lump and dump in this area.
Views expressed are always my own and not my employer's, my church's, my family's, my neighbors', or my pets'. The house plants have authorized me to speak for them, however, and they always agree with me.
I have come across many people who believe that the KJV is required for salvation. In other words, if I read the NIV or the NASB or even the NKJV and got convicted of my sin and made a profession of faith. it wasn’t a real conversion. It needed to occur from a KJB. So, in saying that I think it can in various forms compromise the gospel.I guess this just proves we can’t base too much on our experiences, because in 40 years of being in mostly KJVO/P churches, I’ve never, ever met anyone who believe that the KJV was required for salvation.
EDIT: Looking back at my comment I think it’s misleading to say “many” I think “a few” would be more accurate in terms of whom I know personally. Personally I know about a half dozen and one of those (the one whom I debated) goes to a church that holds to that belief. So depending on the size of the church that would add 2 dozen or so to that number or even more.
Striving for the unity of the faith, for the glory of God ~ Eph. 4:3, 13; Rom. 15:5-7 I blog at Fundamentally Reformed. Follow me on Twitter.
[Alen Basic] I agree that we can’t lump everyone into the same basket. I was so used to debating Ruckmanites that when I came across others who called themselves KJO I got confused when I found out they were more TR only than KJO. There are shades in this belief and unfortunately one side goes right into heresy.But there’s a test for their sincerity, and nearly everyone of them fails it. When they say they are TR only, and thus KJV only, I reply “Then if a quality TR based translation came along, you’d support it?” And, in all except one case, they start the hemming and hawing.
“Oh, but the language of the KJV is ideally suited…”
“Oh, but why would we abandon what God has blessed for so many years…?”
To which my answer is “Excuse me, sir. Your traditionalism is showing.”
For me, the KJV is rapidly ceasing to be an English Translation as English evolves. It is what the linguists call “Early Modern English”, but to every non-scholar, the term is “Old English” — meaning “We barely can understand it.”
For those of us who grew up with it, it is comprehensible (though not a few KJVO’s demonstrate from their sermons that they actually don’t correctly understand it).
But for the vast majority of the U.S. population, it is inaccessible in the details.
So, the challenge for a sincere TR Only guy should be “Let’s gather our resources and make a great TR based English translation! The word of God for the common man, once again!”
If they can’t say that, I don’t believe them when they say it’s about the TR.
I come very close to thinking “heresy” when I see a doctrinal statement include a statement that the King James Version is God’s inspired Word for the English speaking world. This is placing this errant teaching in the same statements as those that are derived from the teaching of the Word of God. When we see other groups bring their traditions, or biblically unsubstantiated teachings in their doctrinal statement, we usually think of false teaching. I have brothers in Christ that I care about a great deal that fall in this group. However, on more than one occasion, this “teaching” has been the basis for their organizational, and something personal separation from other brothers. What should this be called - besides very unfortunate?
Bob Fuller Always Forward
[Bob Hayton] There are books advocating the “incorruptible seed” idea in relation to the KJV. 1 Pet. 1:23 says the Word saves because of it’s incorruptibility as the incorruptible seed. It is claimed other versions are corruptible seed and hence cannot save. In one of his books, no less than Jack Hyles actually came out saying one has to have read or heard the KJV in order to be saved. I believe KJVO author William Grady’s position is similar on this point as well.Bob, I’ve run across this before quite a bit. We are in a weird part of Michigan. To the north of us, you begin to hit the more radical churches — KJVO, Michigan Militia, etc. Many of them take the “incorruptible seed” view.
It’s an odd view, isn’t it, as the language doesn’t necessarily equate the “incorruptible seed” with the “Word of God”. Depending on how you interpret, the Word of God may be the source of the incorruptible seed. I can see it either way. The idea is surely “perishable” vs. “imperishable”, based on surrounding verses (leaving Greek out, since we’re talking about KJVO’s here). But the contrast is human flesh’s perishability vs. the Word of God’s imperishability. So it may be saying that we become children of God (imperishable) rather than mere children of man (perishable) because of the imperishable Word of God.
The Jack Hyles thing still makes me sad. I was at HAC in 1980, and Jack Hyles was preaching that the KJVO position was heresy, as it implied a progressive revelation after the conclusion of the Scriptures. A few years later, he was KJVO. And nobody in his church noticed, it seemed. Or none dared bring it up.
[Mike Durning]This is the most reasonable post I think I’ve read on this issue in a long time. Thanks Bro. Durning.[Alen Basic] I agree that we can’t lump everyone into the same basket. I was so used to debating Ruckmanites that when I came across others who called themselves KJO I got confused when I found out they were more TR only than KJO. There are shades in this belief and unfortunately one side goes right into heresy.But there’s a test for their sincerity, and nearly everyone of them fails it. When they say they are TR only, and thus KJV only, I reply “Then if a quality TR based translation came along, you’d support it?” And, in all except one case, they start the hemming and hawing…
To which my answer is “Excuse me, sir. Your traditionalism is showing.”
So, the challenge for a sincere TR Only guy should be “Let’s gather our resources and make a great TR based English translation! The word of God for the common man, once again!”
If they can’t say that, I don’t believe them when they say it’s about the TR.
Discussion