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
That is an interesting statement you make regarding Hyles. I was once a big Hyles fan (still have a soft spot for the man in my heart) and I used to order a years worth of his sermons at a time. I know that from sermons I heard in the 70s, he would occasionally say something like, “now take your red pen and circle that word, because that is a poor translation.” On a side note, I actually listened to a sermon preached from the apocrypha once from Hyles, also (Note that he did not call it inspired Scripture, but he did use it as his text b/c he wanted to make a point from it).
So what do you think happened? Did SoL change? Was it Al Lacy’s influence? I would understand if the change came out at the same time as the RSV, but why change in the 80s?
[AndrewSuttles] So what do you think happened? Did SoL change? Was it Al Lacy’s influence? I would understand if the change came out at the same time as the RSV, but why change in the 80s?If you subscribe to the theory that Jack Hyles was a sincere servant of God, falsely accused of wrong-doing, then you would have to conclude that he became firmly convinced on the KJVO view.
If you subscribe to the theory that he turned into a corrupt leader and was guilty of all the worst people have accused him of, then you might conclude that he desperately needed a new constituency when the accusations made his following begin to wane.
And, of course, anything in between these 2 extremes.
I left HAC for reasons. While I believe the truth is somewhere between the two extremes, what I observed suggests to me that the 2nd view has a larger share of the truth than the first, but I admit I might be wrong.
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.
[Susan R]Such a translation already exists. It is the NKJV (New King James Version).[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.
They (the NKJV committee) went out of their way to only use the same sources behind the King James. It has been lied about and rejected by the KJVO crowd. This is specifically pointed out by James Price in his book mentioned below.
The book “King James Onlyism- A New Sect,” by James D. Price is by far the best on this subject. He was Executive Chairman of the translation committee for the NKJV. He is a well respected scholar. He is also a Fundamentalist and taught at Temple Seminary at one time.
A less detailed but also a very good book is “One Bible Only,” edited by Kevin Bauder and Roy Beacham. Both are from Central Baptist Seminary.
After reading these books and properly thinking through this subject one should come to understand the any who advocate an infallible text in the Greek TR and the Ben Chayyim Hebrew text are logically advocating 16th century re-inspiration by those who gathered and set forth the texts. Also those who advocate an infallible English translation in the KJV also are presenting that which requires 17th century re-inspiration of the translators. James Price clearly shows that the infallible textual advocates are merely offering a clever disguise of pseudo scholarship. They reject the NKJV and all other translations and speak in terms giving essential infallibility to the KJV.
There are essentially only two positions. First is the KJVO which includes even the infallible text advocates as well as the infallible English advocates, Second is the KJVP which does not claim any infallible text or translation but merely claims it is the best of the many or they just like it best and use it.
The different advocates of various text types that merely claim perceived superiority for a text family or type are not included in either the KJVO or KJVP positions. They are within the bounds of normal orthodoxy in Bibliology and textual criticism.
Some who call themselves Fundamentalists have failed to see the factual reality and consequences of the KJVO position and its many dangers. By consequences I am not just referring to practical consequences. I am referring to the historical consequences for the Christian faith and the doctrines involved with Bibliology. If you have not read the books I have mentioned please do so.
Also, refer to my posts on the thread on SI regarding the Central Seminary “Ethos statement on Fundamentalism and Evangelicalism.”
Also those who advocate an infallible English translation in the KJV also are presenting that which requires 17th century re-inspiration of the translators. James Price clearly shows that the infallible textual advocates are merely offering a clever disguise of pseudo scholarship. They reject the NKJV and all other translations and speak in terms giving essential infallibility to the KJV.Haven’t read Price’s book, but he clearly hasn’t met the people I’ve met. There is no logical necessity of re-inspiration in belief that the KJV is perfect (though the view does have other problems) and a large portion of KJVO adherents do not take that position (I’m inclined to believe a majority, but I haven’t had opportunity to do a study and come up with some objective measurement).
I did have an argument with a relative more than a decade ago about a TR based new translation. He was taking the position that KJV was the only reliable version b/c it was the only one based on TR. I told him about the NKJV and he said he didn’t think NKJV was based on the TR. I knew it was, but didn’t have a copy in hand.
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.
[Aaron Blumer] There is no logical necessity of re-inspiration in belief that the KJV is perfect (though the view does have other problems) and a large portion of KJVO adherents do not take that position (I’m inclined to believe a majority, but I haven’t had opportunity to do a study and come up with some objective measurement).Aaron -
I agree with you that almost any KJVO will deny double inspiration, but don’t you think there is an inconsistency in their argument, then? If the men in 1611 did a perfect work of preserving God’s Word, how could that not involve God’s superintendence?
Great point by Bob T. The NKJV is a great update, and one which we use and recommend—especially for those concerned about the “critical” text.
I’m curious, but I have no original language training. Of all of these internal discrepancies, are any of them mistranslated, or are they all accurately translated from the original languages? My point is this - it would be wrong for a translator to make assumptions and “fix” the discrepancies. If the discrepancies also exist in the extant manuscripts, then I would still be satisfied that the KJV is an accurate translation.
V/r
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
"Some things are of that nature as to make one's fancy chuckle, while his heart doth ache." John Bunyan
[JNoël] Bob,Good question. Most of these discrepancies, I’m sure are in the original language texts as well. My point in bringing them forward is that the KJV only position is demanding a standard of accuracy that is not met even in the manuscript copies and texts we have. These discrepancies exist whether you use the Critical Greek text or the Textus Receptus, the Ben Chayyim or the Biblia Hebraica (for Hebrew). So, since discrepancies exist in the finer points and small details of parallel passages, why should we ask for absolute 100% perfection in order to say a Bible is profitable?
I’m curious, but I have no original language training. Of all of these internal discrepancies, are any of them mistranslated, or are they all accurately translated from the original languages? My point is this - it would be wrong for a translator to make assumptions and “fix” the discrepancies. If the discrepancies also exist in the extant manuscripts, then I would still be satisfied that the KJV is an accurate translation.
V/r
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.
Thank you for you response and the article. Excellent demonstration of the error of jot and tittleism. How large a segment of anti-critical textism do you suppose subscribe to that degree of preservation?
V/r
Ashamed of Jesus! of that Friend On whom for heaven my hopes depend! It must not be! be this my shame, That I no more revere His name. -Joseph Grigg (1720-1768)
[JNoël]Read any of the popular works on the King James Bible. They argue that differences from the King James wording cannot be permissible. I would say a large percentage of King James Onlyists have this idea of preservation. And I can’t presume to guess how many KJV Onlyists are out there, but it’s a very high number.Bob Hayton wrote: Good question. Most of these discrepancies, I’m sure are in the original language texts as well. My point in bringing them forward is that the KJV only position is demanding a standard of accuracy that is not met even in the manuscript copies and texts we have. These discrepancies exist whether you use the Critical Greek text or the Textus Receptus, the Ben Chayyim or the Biblia Hebraica (for Hebrew). So, since discrepancies exist in the finer points and small details of parallel passages, why should we ask for absolute 100% perfection in order to say a Bible is profitable?
Thank you for you response and the article. Excellent demonstration of the error of jot and tittleism. How large a segment of anti-critical textism do you suppose subscribe to that degree of preservation?
V/r
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.
Do you know of any good books or articles that answer some of these alleged contradictions mentioned in the main article?
In the Believer’s Bible commentary by William MacDonald (one volume commentary), William MacDonald provides some reasonable explanations for a few of the differences in Old Testament history in the footnotes at the back of 2nd Chronicles as well as alleged contradictions in some other places. (Amazon.com)
I came across several apologetics books that I’d like to know your opinion about if you have them or if you think they would be helpful:
Alleged Discrepancies of the Bible - John W. Haley (although written in the 1800’s, people say he covers more Scripture than some of the newer apologetics books) - Amazon.com
The Big Book of Bible Difficulties by Norman L. Geisler and Thomas Howe (an updated version of When Skeptics Ask) - Amazon.com
New International Encyclopedia of Bible Difficulties by Gleason L. Archer Jr. (updated version) - Amazon.com
Thanks for your time and help.
Love,
In Christ,
Matt
Christ Saves Sinners is my evangelistic website.
I have looked at Archer’s book and liked it at the time. The others are probably helpful as well. To be clear, there are explanations for these difficulties. One is that in Bible days people didn’t worry about exact quotation so much as capturing the sense (this is before recording devices and in a culture without much literacy. Another often resorted to solution is the presence of some copyist errors. Scofield is typical in his study Bible where he points out numerous scribal errors. Finally our confusion about how Hebrew numbering works can account for some of the other issues. The paper I link to above by George Wenham gives some suggested solutions. In some cases we may not know the “answer”, but our faith guides us to expect one eventually for the problem.
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.
[AndrewSuttles] Aaron -I’ve already answered this a few times, but maybe not in this thread (I think it’s in the Central Ethos Statement one).
I agree with you that almost any KJVO will deny double inspiration, but don’t you think there is an inconsistency in their argument, then? If the men in 1611 did a perfect work of preserving God’s Word, how could that not involve God’s superintendence?
I don’t think there is any inherent inconsistency. Here’s why:
The orthodox view of inspiration
1. places it in history in the first century and before
2. refers to producing revelation… something is written by authors and did not exist before it was written
3. assigns a unique role to the Spirit in producing infallible writings
Folks who believe in a perfect KJV, frequently do not believe that what happened in the production of the KJV shares these three points. The first for obvious reasons. The second, because nothing new is revealed, and the third because whatever happened was not the same thing. Perhaps the third is redundant with the second slightly because you don’t have the Spirit producing words where there were none.
In many cases, KJVO’s I’ve heard speak to the point, do not specify “Holy Spirit” involvement at all.
Some believe the KJV is perfect due to providential factors and do not claim that anything miraculous even happened.
Others claim God intervened in a miraculous way but did not re-inspire.
I think with a little effort it is possible to see that many who make this distinction are both sincere and logically consistent.
Admittedly the view still has problems. It asserts events that Scripture does not predict or promise and that both history and what we have access to in MSS and KJV editions do not support. But there is no inherent incompatibility with orthodox inspiration as far as I can tell.
The only place I know of where that kind of problem is built in is where you have folks claiming that God inspired the translators and the translation can be used to correct the Greek.
Admittedly, claiming that the KJV is “perfect,” comes very close to that. But many do not go so far as to say it can correct the Greek or that God enabled translators to get the English right where the Greek was wrong, etc.
Might seem like splitting hairs but lines have to be drawn in defending orthodox faith, and upholding or rejecting orthodox inspiration is a really important line. I think it is possible to hold to a “perfect KJV” view and be just a hair on the right side of that line.
Too close for my comfort, but still on the right side.
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.
Discussion