Simple answers to hard questions
Posted: 26 May 2014, 22:47SIMPLE ANSWERS TO HARD QUESTIONS
1. The translators said, “so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good”, and that there “is great probability for each”, that is, either the margin or the main text as being correct. Does this mean that the main text alone is imperfect? How could it be possible to argue for the King James Bible only, when the very translators said there was “doubt”?
The simple answer is that God has given one Word, and that while some places it was difficult to determine out of the historical evidence the genuine text, or the proper translation, whatever the translators judiciously decided was the correct text after great and thorough study, was placed as the correct text, and all other information or variations, which must have always had a less than equal probability, was relegated to the margins. Even if the case was exactly 50/50 either way, they had a choice as to what would stand as truth, and what would be otherwise. The translators were honest, in that they provided the greater public a full view of their choices, and the consensus has always accepted their work. God Himself has vindicated it. Therefore, once these things are understood and accepted, there is no need for personal studies into the marginal notes to see whether they are right or not, but keeping them into the future allows for anyone to make such inquiries. However, there should never rise the need to doubt the received tradition concerning this.
2. The translators said, “variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures”. Does this mean that the King James Bible was not a perfect translation? Does this mean that other translations are as equally as valid?
The simple answer is that God has given His Word. That means the full message is available, having gone forth to all nations, and is available in English. The variety of translations were profitable for the King James Bible translators to ensure they had the sense correct, but once they had created their translation, no more inquiries into the variety were necessary. This having been completed and finalised, looking at the King James Bible as a singular authority is the only valid and profitable approach now.
3. The translators used italics to indicate words not presented in all the manuscript evidence, or words that were given in English, not expressly existing in the original languages. Do the italics indicate imperfection of the English Bible?
Italic typeface should be preserved, because they give indications as to what may only exist in part in the evidence, or have been given in English to complete the sense. All words in italic are completely the Scripture and true in either case, because they are words which were in the original autographs, or are the necessary words to render the full and exact sense of the meaning in English. They do not add to the Word of God, and they are not incorrectly placed or used.
4. If the King James Bible is perfect, why were there printer’s errors?
God has guaranteed to preserve His Word. This is despite all the mistakes and variations that exist in the original language manuscripts, which have not been enough to destroy the Word. Even all the scattering, including corruption and deliberate destruction of Scripture copies by the enemies of God has not been enough to cause even one inspired word to be lost. When the King James Bible was made, it was the correct text and translation, despite the lower level of printing technology of the day, or the fluid mode of spelling, or any other alteration in presentation.
5. If the King James Bible is perfect, how could it be so, except the translators were inspired?
It is possible, under they guiding providence of almighty God, that human endeavour submitted to Him may accomplish certain things, including the wonder of having a perfect text and translation. But this was accomplished because of providential reasons, namely, that the right people were brought together at the right time with the right learning and access to the right sources to conclude the King James Bible. The translators were not inspired, yet they recognised that “through the good hand of the Lord upon us, [they] brought the work to that pass that you see.”
6. If the King James Bible was perfect, why were people using the Geneva Bible after the 1611?
There are several reasons why the Geneva Version continued to be used for some years, which mainly was based upon tradition or habit. Only a relatively few who tended to be extremists rejected the King James Bible. The translators themselves knew that they were in a superior work, “to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.” Most people recognised that the King James Bible was indeed the best, and that nothing could justly be said against it.
7. How can the King James Bible be perfect if there was and is different editions?
The simple answer is that there has been a purification of the presentation. That means that typographical errors have been corrected, the language standardised and other regularisation introduced. The line of editions from 1611 to the Pure Cambridge Edition show this tendency, despite the minor aberrations that have occurred along the way or in concurrent editions. The text and the translation have not been lost. Any edition which is wayward, or which continues to diverge from or yet is made to alter from the Pure Cambridge Edition is obviously leading away from the proper presentation, and more radical examples show increase departing from the King James Bible proper. Thus, despite the existence of differences, there is one standard edition.
8. Why do the translators of 1611 not indicate that they are “King James Bible only”?
The doctrine of King James Bible only actually exists in several forms, some of which are either less developed, or more erroneous. The King James Bible only doctrine has developed over time as legitimately as doctrines like that of water baptism have developed from the Reformation. The current King James Bible only ideas have largely been articulated as a response to modern versions. However, a general trend or spirit of King James Bible onlyism, or belief in the full truth of present Scripture, existed from the Reformation and has gradually diminished from the late nineteenth century to around the year 2000. As late as the 1980s, modern versions were still viewed with suspicion by many. Clearly, just as apostasy has progressed, so has the understanding of the providence and vindication of the King James Bible progressed.
9. If the perfect Word of God exists in the King James Bible, what about other versions, even good ones? And what about people in other countries?
It is a great lie which states that the truth is only or fully in the original languages. If it is only there, then God is limited. Furthermore, no single full and perfect form of either testament can be produced in the respective original languages. To have one whole Bible in one language, which is correct both in version text as well as its translation must be the best. There have been and are many adequate and good Bibles, but the King James Bible is perfect. Since the world is learning English, it is much better to concentrate on getting people to use the King James Bible than anything else. Having one standard world Bible in the Millennium is reasonable, but having one Bible for the world before the tribulation would be good and a great sign of God. True doctrine would be linked to the King James Bible. Therefore, in the future, all true Christians in the whole world would be using the King James Bible.
10. If there is only one edition that is pure, why are good Christian people yet using other editions, or even other versions and translations?
Some people are ignorant of the issue, and others are yet facing constraints and barriers which are keeping them from fully using the pure presentation of the King James Bible.
IS THE ENGLISH SERVANT TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, EQUAL OR SUPERIOR?
1. The word "jot" or "tittle" does not imply limitation of the preservation of the true Hebrew alone, in that "jot" and "tittle" are actually English words with English meanings, and being used in the King James Bible, must validly be able to apply to that version. (If Matthew 5:18 applies to the Hebrew, how is it that Jesus was speaking Greek at the time, and if the real meaning and implication is concerning the Hebrew, how come isn't the "real" definition also given in Hebrew or Greek, but with English words?)
2. There is no standard single extant perfect text of the Old Testament or the New Testament in the respective original languages. Neither is one forthcoming.
3. Since the world knows English rather than Bible Hebrew or Greek, it would follow that the full Gospel would come forth to the Gentiles in English rather than Hebrew or Greek.
4. That while the original languages were the source for the King James Bible, that once the full meaning had been rendered into English according to the "standard" of the originals, that the English Bible may equally be used as a standard, for that it equalled the proper text and the proper, full and exact translation. In fact, the English would be superior in that no single "version" or text in the originals is final standard to the "jot" and "tittle". Moreover, there is nothing to prohibit the superintendence of the Holy Ghost over the transmission of the Scripture, including that it is reasonable that He should be able to bring the full meaning into English via translation.
5. That the accuracy of the Scripture must be separated from whether or not there were flaws, copying mistakes, printer errors or spelling variations in some or various copies or editions at any time. The inerrancy of Scripture does not primarily imply that every copy would be correct to the jot and tittle. It does mean that the Word would never be lost, and that it would be gathered, refined and purified.
6. The ultimate outworking of God would be to have a correct "jot" and "tittle" accurate English presentation, as is consistent with the idea of perfection, because not only would God care concerning the correctness of the text and translation being gathered in a book, but that He would also outwork that the very presentation of the Scripture be free from any typographical error or unwarranted variant spelling. This has been the result of a long process, and not instantaneous. Therefore, the 1611 Edition of the King James Bible cannot be counted as the authoritative standard representation of the proper presentation of the Word in regards to typography and spelling.
7. The outworking of God has not been to guarantee the continued preservation of His Word in Hebrew or in Greek, but is primarily and demonstrably concerned with the preservation of His true Word. His Word has, in its supersuccessionary and final form is in English, as may be seen by all factors working together so that the King James Bible is alone held as authority by true Christians throughout the world.
"He is the Rock, his work is perfect" (Deut. 32:4a). "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Ps. 18:30).
If the King James Bible is not the very Word of God, where is the exact and full Word of God today that is in one book, exactly, perfectly, fully, utterly, accurately, ultimately, finally and to the very jot and tittle? When will Christians have full access to the very words of God from one place or by one sure method with nothing added or depleted? Are those who deny a proper view of the pure King James Bible alone really in the worst category as described in Deuteronomy 30:11-14?
"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."
Does the doctrine of having a perfect Word apply before there actually is one?
The perfect Word of God existed on Earth since inspiration was complete in the time of the Apostle John, but was scattered, and has been given in various versions and translations, but never fully in regards to the exact text or in a perfect translation in one place totally. This is not to deny that the Word of God was perfect in the past, or that any good version was not the Word of God, or that even the Vulgate was not containing the Word of God, but that there had to be a process where the Word was gathered into one exact translation, being the King James Bible. Thus, the Word of God was presented perfectly as a whole long after the perfect individual Autographs were made.
This principle is consistent with the fact that men were preserved of God for salvation before Christ ever came, or that the Word of God was said to be in all the world before it actually arrived to every last place. In other words, to approach the King James Bible by faith that it is exactly the Word of God is consistent with the Scripture it contains, and that since it is the Scripture, everything about itself is self-authenticating. Those who ridicule believing the King James Bible “by faith” and “circular reasoning” are actually ridiculing the foundation of the true Christian religion.
HOW TO FIND OUT THE MEANING OF ANY WORD OR PHASE IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE. IS THE HEBREW AND GREEK NEEDFUL?
I would not recommend Webster's Dictionary to help with the words, because Webster was a King James Bible "corrector". The best source to use for English words is the full Oxford English Dictionary. The OED is the authoritative record of historical English usage.
As for words within the King James Bible itself, it is possible by context and the conference of Scripture with Scripture, to understand the meaning of words. This is because the King James Bible consists of Biblical English, which differs from standard or ordinary English as to its use and meaning, and reveals complexity and accuracy beyond the use of English in any other work or form.
Here is a basic explanation:
1. Every single word in the King James Bible has been rightfully used in each place, every word is exactly in its proper place with the proper meaning.
2. That there is a reason why one original word may be translated differently into English, or whether different original words may be translated with the same English word. The fullest meaning will be found in holding each English word as correct.
3. That there are reasons why a synonym is used, rather than the same English word, e.g. for subtle shades of meaning, for better rhythm, etc.
4. That even a slight difference in an English word has a different meaning or different usage, each being used correctly in its place, e.g. beside and besides, sometime and sometimes, etc.
5. That each word is used according to Biblical English grammar (which is not identical to modern grammar).
6. That each word, set of words, representation of concepts, form a structure, such as a continual alternation, inversion or division of ideas.
7. That each word or phrase may be understood by a provided form of self-definition, which is by reading or understanding the context, as well as the conference of Scripture with Scripture.
8. That one word can have different possible meanings. For example, the word "wine" indicates grape drink, thus, not always meaning that it is alcoholic.
9. That the exact meaning of each word is entirely accurate, being a sign of the divine imprint, not only in the inspiration, but in the superintendence of the Holy Ghost over the transmission and presentation of the Scripture.
10. That the exact presentation of the King James Bible, down to the very letter, most completely gives the best view of this perfection.
The translators of 1611 said: "that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God".
They are talking about the English translations of Tyndale to the Bishops'. They are comparing that situation to the Catholic English translation. They are not talking about Latin or Greek, but about English. And in English, they accept that every Protestant Bible is the Word of God despite the slight differences between them.
Now, I could say that the Word of God was in Latin, because I know that the Celtic Church was using Latin manuscripts. However, although the editions of the Vulgate are presentations of the Scripture, I know that there are imperfections with it. What I am highlighting is that there was never an entire Bible which matched in every place to the Autographs because of the great scattering that took place leading to the Dark Ages. In the Reformation, we find that the gathering was taking place, so that instead of having the Word of God imperfectly given in many presentations, this began a trend toward centralising or standardising the text form and the translation, which led to the King James Bible, and in time, has meant that the King James Bible is to be the only standard for the world.
So, where is the inerrant Hebrew or Greek, and how can there be an inerrant English text without there being an extant Hebrew or Greek?
The answer is that there was a preservation of the Word of God in many forms or a variety of evidence, so that while there might be many manuscripts, portions and versions, etc., collectively the Word of God was not lost, and out of all the scattered witnesses, primarily the Hebrew and the Greek, TR editions, and therefore, Protestant Versions were made. Supersucessionary to them is the King James Bible. The process of text gathering and perfect translation was complete by 1611, according to the providence and superintendence of God. He had the right evidence available to the right men at the right time, who used the right learning and right judgment to form the right final Bible, as they called it, one more exact translation into the English tongue.
Matthew 5:18 says that the jots and tittles were to be preserved. Was Jesus just talking about the Old Testament they knew of then? And, if that is what they knew then, would that not apply to the same today?
Jesus was ultimately meaning that the KJB would be the final preserved form. Why should the scattered Hebrew and Greek witnesses be preserved as "scattered" unless there was a gathered form which stood or was built upon that, being the final gathered form. God has not merely promised to preserve a scattered Old Testament and New Testament, He has promised for there to be "the book of the LORD" in "another tongue" (see Isaiah 34:16 and 28:11). There should be one standard in the Church (see 1 Cor. 1:10 and Is. 59:19). If the jots and tittles of the Old Testament are not supposed to fail, then it follows that they should all be together in one place. Moreover, there is nothing to stipulate that the jots and tittles are meaning that it is the Hebrew language only. In fact, to argue that is to agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of keeping the Scripture locked out of the common tongue, which in the world today in English. The New Testament specifically says that the Old Testament should be made known, i.e. not in Hebrew, "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26).
So, how can we really know the King James Bible is right, and really know that it doesn’t have mistakes?
Either we believe the Scripture, and recognise that we have the Word of God exactly in one finite form, being the King James Bible, or else we are yet wondering what exactly is the Word of God out of all the variations, differences, confusion and uncertainty.
Which jots and which tittles actually belong to the Word of God?
1. The translators said, “so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must needs do good”, and that there “is great probability for each”, that is, either the margin or the main text as being correct. Does this mean that the main text alone is imperfect? How could it be possible to argue for the King James Bible only, when the very translators said there was “doubt”?
The simple answer is that God has given one Word, and that while some places it was difficult to determine out of the historical evidence the genuine text, or the proper translation, whatever the translators judiciously decided was the correct text after great and thorough study, was placed as the correct text, and all other information or variations, which must have always had a less than equal probability, was relegated to the margins. Even if the case was exactly 50/50 either way, they had a choice as to what would stand as truth, and what would be otherwise. The translators were honest, in that they provided the greater public a full view of their choices, and the consensus has always accepted their work. God Himself has vindicated it. Therefore, once these things are understood and accepted, there is no need for personal studies into the marginal notes to see whether they are right or not, but keeping them into the future allows for anyone to make such inquiries. However, there should never rise the need to doubt the received tradition concerning this.
2. The translators said, “variety of translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures”. Does this mean that the King James Bible was not a perfect translation? Does this mean that other translations are as equally as valid?
The simple answer is that God has given His Word. That means the full message is available, having gone forth to all nations, and is available in English. The variety of translations were profitable for the King James Bible translators to ensure they had the sense correct, but once they had created their translation, no more inquiries into the variety were necessary. This having been completed and finalised, looking at the King James Bible as a singular authority is the only valid and profitable approach now.
3. The translators used italics to indicate words not presented in all the manuscript evidence, or words that were given in English, not expressly existing in the original languages. Do the italics indicate imperfection of the English Bible?
Italic typeface should be preserved, because they give indications as to what may only exist in part in the evidence, or have been given in English to complete the sense. All words in italic are completely the Scripture and true in either case, because they are words which were in the original autographs, or are the necessary words to render the full and exact sense of the meaning in English. They do not add to the Word of God, and they are not incorrectly placed or used.
4. If the King James Bible is perfect, why were there printer’s errors?
God has guaranteed to preserve His Word. This is despite all the mistakes and variations that exist in the original language manuscripts, which have not been enough to destroy the Word. Even all the scattering, including corruption and deliberate destruction of Scripture copies by the enemies of God has not been enough to cause even one inspired word to be lost. When the King James Bible was made, it was the correct text and translation, despite the lower level of printing technology of the day, or the fluid mode of spelling, or any other alteration in presentation.
5. If the King James Bible is perfect, how could it be so, except the translators were inspired?
It is possible, under they guiding providence of almighty God, that human endeavour submitted to Him may accomplish certain things, including the wonder of having a perfect text and translation. But this was accomplished because of providential reasons, namely, that the right people were brought together at the right time with the right learning and access to the right sources to conclude the King James Bible. The translators were not inspired, yet they recognised that “through the good hand of the Lord upon us, [they] brought the work to that pass that you see.”
6. If the King James Bible was perfect, why were people using the Geneva Bible after the 1611?
There are several reasons why the Geneva Version continued to be used for some years, which mainly was based upon tradition or habit. Only a relatively few who tended to be extremists rejected the King James Bible. The translators themselves knew that they were in a superior work, “to make a good one better, or out of many good ones one principal good one, not justly to be excepted against; that hath been our endeavour, that our mark.” Most people recognised that the King James Bible was indeed the best, and that nothing could justly be said against it.
7. How can the King James Bible be perfect if there was and is different editions?
The simple answer is that there has been a purification of the presentation. That means that typographical errors have been corrected, the language standardised and other regularisation introduced. The line of editions from 1611 to the Pure Cambridge Edition show this tendency, despite the minor aberrations that have occurred along the way or in concurrent editions. The text and the translation have not been lost. Any edition which is wayward, or which continues to diverge from or yet is made to alter from the Pure Cambridge Edition is obviously leading away from the proper presentation, and more radical examples show increase departing from the King James Bible proper. Thus, despite the existence of differences, there is one standard edition.
8. Why do the translators of 1611 not indicate that they are “King James Bible only”?
The doctrine of King James Bible only actually exists in several forms, some of which are either less developed, or more erroneous. The King James Bible only doctrine has developed over time as legitimately as doctrines like that of water baptism have developed from the Reformation. The current King James Bible only ideas have largely been articulated as a response to modern versions. However, a general trend or spirit of King James Bible onlyism, or belief in the full truth of present Scripture, existed from the Reformation and has gradually diminished from the late nineteenth century to around the year 2000. As late as the 1980s, modern versions were still viewed with suspicion by many. Clearly, just as apostasy has progressed, so has the understanding of the providence and vindication of the King James Bible progressed.
9. If the perfect Word of God exists in the King James Bible, what about other versions, even good ones? And what about people in other countries?
It is a great lie which states that the truth is only or fully in the original languages. If it is only there, then God is limited. Furthermore, no single full and perfect form of either testament can be produced in the respective original languages. To have one whole Bible in one language, which is correct both in version text as well as its translation must be the best. There have been and are many adequate and good Bibles, but the King James Bible is perfect. Since the world is learning English, it is much better to concentrate on getting people to use the King James Bible than anything else. Having one standard world Bible in the Millennium is reasonable, but having one Bible for the world before the tribulation would be good and a great sign of God. True doctrine would be linked to the King James Bible. Therefore, in the future, all true Christians in the whole world would be using the King James Bible.
10. If there is only one edition that is pure, why are good Christian people yet using other editions, or even other versions and translations?
Some people are ignorant of the issue, and others are yet facing constraints and barriers which are keeping them from fully using the pure presentation of the King James Bible.
IS THE ENGLISH SERVANT TO THE ORIGINAL LANGUAGES, EQUAL OR SUPERIOR?
1. The word "jot" or "tittle" does not imply limitation of the preservation of the true Hebrew alone, in that "jot" and "tittle" are actually English words with English meanings, and being used in the King James Bible, must validly be able to apply to that version. (If Matthew 5:18 applies to the Hebrew, how is it that Jesus was speaking Greek at the time, and if the real meaning and implication is concerning the Hebrew, how come isn't the "real" definition also given in Hebrew or Greek, but with English words?)
2. There is no standard single extant perfect text of the Old Testament or the New Testament in the respective original languages. Neither is one forthcoming.
3. Since the world knows English rather than Bible Hebrew or Greek, it would follow that the full Gospel would come forth to the Gentiles in English rather than Hebrew or Greek.
4. That while the original languages were the source for the King James Bible, that once the full meaning had been rendered into English according to the "standard" of the originals, that the English Bible may equally be used as a standard, for that it equalled the proper text and the proper, full and exact translation. In fact, the English would be superior in that no single "version" or text in the originals is final standard to the "jot" and "tittle". Moreover, there is nothing to prohibit the superintendence of the Holy Ghost over the transmission of the Scripture, including that it is reasonable that He should be able to bring the full meaning into English via translation.
5. That the accuracy of the Scripture must be separated from whether or not there were flaws, copying mistakes, printer errors or spelling variations in some or various copies or editions at any time. The inerrancy of Scripture does not primarily imply that every copy would be correct to the jot and tittle. It does mean that the Word would never be lost, and that it would be gathered, refined and purified.
6. The ultimate outworking of God would be to have a correct "jot" and "tittle" accurate English presentation, as is consistent with the idea of perfection, because not only would God care concerning the correctness of the text and translation being gathered in a book, but that He would also outwork that the very presentation of the Scripture be free from any typographical error or unwarranted variant spelling. This has been the result of a long process, and not instantaneous. Therefore, the 1611 Edition of the King James Bible cannot be counted as the authoritative standard representation of the proper presentation of the Word in regards to typography and spelling.
7. The outworking of God has not been to guarantee the continued preservation of His Word in Hebrew or in Greek, but is primarily and demonstrably concerned with the preservation of His true Word. His Word has, in its supersuccessionary and final form is in English, as may be seen by all factors working together so that the King James Bible is alone held as authority by true Christians throughout the world.
"He is the Rock, his work is perfect" (Deut. 32:4a). "As for God, his way is perfect: the word of the LORD is tried: he is a buckler to all those that trust in him." (Ps. 18:30).
If the King James Bible is not the very Word of God, where is the exact and full Word of God today that is in one book, exactly, perfectly, fully, utterly, accurately, ultimately, finally and to the very jot and tittle? When will Christians have full access to the very words of God from one place or by one sure method with nothing added or depleted? Are those who deny a proper view of the pure King James Bible alone really in the worst category as described in Deuteronomy 30:11-14?
"For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off. It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it? But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayest do it."
Does the doctrine of having a perfect Word apply before there actually is one?
The perfect Word of God existed on Earth since inspiration was complete in the time of the Apostle John, but was scattered, and has been given in various versions and translations, but never fully in regards to the exact text or in a perfect translation in one place totally. This is not to deny that the Word of God was perfect in the past, or that any good version was not the Word of God, or that even the Vulgate was not containing the Word of God, but that there had to be a process where the Word was gathered into one exact translation, being the King James Bible. Thus, the Word of God was presented perfectly as a whole long after the perfect individual Autographs were made.
This principle is consistent with the fact that men were preserved of God for salvation before Christ ever came, or that the Word of God was said to be in all the world before it actually arrived to every last place. In other words, to approach the King James Bible by faith that it is exactly the Word of God is consistent with the Scripture it contains, and that since it is the Scripture, everything about itself is self-authenticating. Those who ridicule believing the King James Bible “by faith” and “circular reasoning” are actually ridiculing the foundation of the true Christian religion.
HOW TO FIND OUT THE MEANING OF ANY WORD OR PHASE IN THE KING JAMES BIBLE. IS THE HEBREW AND GREEK NEEDFUL?
I would not recommend Webster's Dictionary to help with the words, because Webster was a King James Bible "corrector". The best source to use for English words is the full Oxford English Dictionary. The OED is the authoritative record of historical English usage.
As for words within the King James Bible itself, it is possible by context and the conference of Scripture with Scripture, to understand the meaning of words. This is because the King James Bible consists of Biblical English, which differs from standard or ordinary English as to its use and meaning, and reveals complexity and accuracy beyond the use of English in any other work or form.
Here is a basic explanation:
1. Every single word in the King James Bible has been rightfully used in each place, every word is exactly in its proper place with the proper meaning.
2. That there is a reason why one original word may be translated differently into English, or whether different original words may be translated with the same English word. The fullest meaning will be found in holding each English word as correct.
3. That there are reasons why a synonym is used, rather than the same English word, e.g. for subtle shades of meaning, for better rhythm, etc.
4. That even a slight difference in an English word has a different meaning or different usage, each being used correctly in its place, e.g. beside and besides, sometime and sometimes, etc.
5. That each word is used according to Biblical English grammar (which is not identical to modern grammar).
6. That each word, set of words, representation of concepts, form a structure, such as a continual alternation, inversion or division of ideas.
7. That each word or phrase may be understood by a provided form of self-definition, which is by reading or understanding the context, as well as the conference of Scripture with Scripture.
8. That one word can have different possible meanings. For example, the word "wine" indicates grape drink, thus, not always meaning that it is alcoholic.
9. That the exact meaning of each word is entirely accurate, being a sign of the divine imprint, not only in the inspiration, but in the superintendence of the Holy Ghost over the transmission and presentation of the Scripture.
10. That the exact presentation of the King James Bible, down to the very letter, most completely gives the best view of this perfection.
The translators of 1611 said: "that the very meanest translation of the Bible in English set forth by men of our profession (for we have seen none of theirs of the whole Bible as yet) containeth the word of God, nay, is the word of God".
They are talking about the English translations of Tyndale to the Bishops'. They are comparing that situation to the Catholic English translation. They are not talking about Latin or Greek, but about English. And in English, they accept that every Protestant Bible is the Word of God despite the slight differences between them.
Now, I could say that the Word of God was in Latin, because I know that the Celtic Church was using Latin manuscripts. However, although the editions of the Vulgate are presentations of the Scripture, I know that there are imperfections with it. What I am highlighting is that there was never an entire Bible which matched in every place to the Autographs because of the great scattering that took place leading to the Dark Ages. In the Reformation, we find that the gathering was taking place, so that instead of having the Word of God imperfectly given in many presentations, this began a trend toward centralising or standardising the text form and the translation, which led to the King James Bible, and in time, has meant that the King James Bible is to be the only standard for the world.
So, where is the inerrant Hebrew or Greek, and how can there be an inerrant English text without there being an extant Hebrew or Greek?
The answer is that there was a preservation of the Word of God in many forms or a variety of evidence, so that while there might be many manuscripts, portions and versions, etc., collectively the Word of God was not lost, and out of all the scattered witnesses, primarily the Hebrew and the Greek, TR editions, and therefore, Protestant Versions were made. Supersucessionary to them is the King James Bible. The process of text gathering and perfect translation was complete by 1611, according to the providence and superintendence of God. He had the right evidence available to the right men at the right time, who used the right learning and right judgment to form the right final Bible, as they called it, one more exact translation into the English tongue.
Matthew 5:18 says that the jots and tittles were to be preserved. Was Jesus just talking about the Old Testament they knew of then? And, if that is what they knew then, would that not apply to the same today?
Jesus was ultimately meaning that the KJB would be the final preserved form. Why should the scattered Hebrew and Greek witnesses be preserved as "scattered" unless there was a gathered form which stood or was built upon that, being the final gathered form. God has not merely promised to preserve a scattered Old Testament and New Testament, He has promised for there to be "the book of the LORD" in "another tongue" (see Isaiah 34:16 and 28:11). There should be one standard in the Church (see 1 Cor. 1:10 and Is. 59:19). If the jots and tittles of the Old Testament are not supposed to fail, then it follows that they should all be together in one place. Moreover, there is nothing to stipulate that the jots and tittles are meaning that it is the Hebrew language only. In fact, to argue that is to agree with the Roman Catholic doctrine of keeping the Scripture locked out of the common tongue, which in the world today in English. The New Testament specifically says that the Old Testament should be made known, i.e. not in Hebrew, "But now is made manifest, and by the scriptures of the prophets, according to the commandment of the everlasting God, made known to all nations for the obedience of faith" (Rom. 16:26).
So, how can we really know the King James Bible is right, and really know that it doesn’t have mistakes?
Either we believe the Scripture, and recognise that we have the Word of God exactly in one finite form, being the King James Bible, or else we are yet wondering what exactly is the Word of God out of all the variations, differences, confusion and uncertainty.
Which jots and which tittles actually belong to the Word of God?