...............................................................................................................................................................
The King James Version
Is the King James Version the Best English Translation?
Gail Burton Purath
This is one of Bible Love Note's resource articles not sent to subscribers. It may take you 5-8 minutes to read. It's made available to confirm and expand truths in the short, concise 1-minute devotions sent to subscribers each weekday. Subscription information HERE.
Introduction:
All translations to include the KJV have their strong and weak points. For example:
➤ The KJV seriously miss-translates Isaiah 45:7 this way: “I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these things.”
God does not create evil and that is not what the Greek says.
To read more about the real meaning of Isaiah 45:7 see God Creates Evil? No Way!
➤ Another example: the KJV miss-translates the Greek word "passover" as "Easter" in Acts 12:4: "And when he had apprehended him, he put him in prison, and delivered him to four quaternions of soldiers to keep him; intending after Easter to bring him forth to the people."
Sadly, there is a powerful faction of well-meaning Christians who believe and teach that the King James Version is the only un-corrupted English translation of Scripture.
They claim that modern English translations have purposely changed the meaning of Scripture to lead people astray.
Their explanations can be very convincing to the average Christian who fails to verify their claims.
7 Points of Critical Importance
Let me start by summarizing some important facts that all Christians should know:
1. The original texts of Scripture (those Moses, Paul, and others wrote under the anointing of the Spirit) are called autographs, and none have survived. If it were important that we have those autographs, God would have protected them. He didn’t.
2. What we have are copies of the autographs, written by human scribes who sometimes made mistakes when copying the original text. The newer the copy, the more scribal errors it contains because it was a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy, etc. instead of a copy of the original.
3. Most of these scribal errors are insignificant and don't change the meaning of the text. Scholars seek out the oldest manuscripts with the lease scribal errors to provide the best translations, those what most closely represent the autographs.
4. When KJV was written, some of the older copies of Scripture had not yet been discovered. So the King James translators used the newer copies of Scripture with more scribal additions (words and phrases added to the text). None of these additions contradict or detract from the message. But they are not Scripture even though they are part of the KJV text.
5. That’s why King James Only teachers are able to compare texts and claim that modern translations have omitted words. In truth, the KJV has added words because they used newer, less accurate manuscripts in their translation. This doesn’t make the KJV corrupted. It simply means that certain details of its wording are based on scribal changes and errors, not Scripture. Since God allowed the newer manuscripts to be our only source for years, I'm sure He was not concerned about these insignificant differences in them. But He also allowed the older manuscripts to be found so we could make our translations more accurate.
6. To claim that an English translation of the Bible written in the 1600’s is the most accurate version for modern Christians means:
A. God is limited in His ability to communicate. He is stuck in time, only able to express Himself in archaic words that no longer have the same meaning to modern readers.
B. God anointed the translators of the KJV but refuses to anoint any other translators even though it would make His Word more understandable to the modern reader.
Neither A. nor B. is true.
7. Translations use different methods, but each major English translation seeks to transmit the message accurately. One of my professors in seminary was Dr. William J. Larkin who translated Acts in the New Living Translation. I have never met a more humble, godly man who knew Scripture so intimately and accurately. He read from the Greek New Testament in our classes, translating as he spoke. He would never have been part of any translation team that did not seek to accurately represent God’s Word.
Divisive Rhetoric
I regularly see comments on social media from KJVO believers claiming that anyone who posts in modern translations is seeking to pervert the gospel.
I have no desire to debate anyone. My goal is to inform those who are confused, those who are open to researching the evidence of God-fearing Bible scholars.
I don’t think KJVO teachers are intentionally trying to be divisive. I believe most of them are well-meaning and sincere. But they are seriously misinformed.
Billy Graham and Other Respected Bible Teachers Explain
For those who are willing, please read the articles linked below. I have included a short excerpt from each:
Changes to the KJV since 1611, Bible.org
Regarding the KJV: "
(1) its underlying text is farther from the original than is the text used in modern translations;
(2) its translation is archaic, with now over 300 words that no longer mean what they did in 1611;
(3) four hundred years of increased knowledge of the biblical world and languages have rendered many of the KJV renderings obsolete.
All this is not to say that the KJV is a bad translation; I still think it stands as the greatest literary monument in the English language.
And one can come to a saving knowledge of Jesus Christ reading the KJV just as one can get saved reading the NIV.
But if one is seeking clarity and accuracy, a modern translation is much preferred."
Is Your Modern Translation Corrupt? Institute for Christian Research
"The importance of the topic should not be underestimated. While the vast majority of conservative Christian scholars completely reject the KJV Only position, the emotionally charged rhetoric of KJV Only advocates causes unnecessary concerns among many believers."
Is the King James Bible the Only Reliable Bible? By Billy Graham
"Some people prefer the King James translation because they have been familiar with it, often from childhood. Others prefer modern translations because they are more easily understood. Also, modern translators have the advantage of using many older Greek manuscripts of the New Testament discovered since the King James translation was made. Most scholars consider these older manuscripts more reliable than the few later manuscripts available to those who translated the King James Bible."
What is the King James Only Movement? Got Questions
"Our loyalties are to the original manuscripts of the Old and New Testaments, written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Only the original languages are the Word of God as He inspired it. A translation is only an attempt to take what is said in one language and communicate it in another. The modern translations are superb in taking the meaning of the original languages and communicating it in a way that we can understand in English."
"Those who vilify the modern translations and the Greek texts behind them have evidently never really investigated the data. Their appeals are based largely on emotion, not evidence. As such, they do an injustice to historic Christianity as well as to the men who stood behind the King James Bible. These scholars, who admitted that their work was provisional and not final (as can be seen by their preface and by their more than 8000 marginal notes indicating alternate renderings), would wholeheartedly welcome the great finds in MSS [Greek Manuscripts] that have occurred in the past one hundred and fifty years."
The King James Only Controversy – The Gospel Coalition
Regarding the KJV Only claim that modern translations delete verses from the Bible: "Based on the older and more reliable manuscripts, the modern translations have simply sought to reflect what was contained in the original manuscripts. It is just as serious to add to Scripture, as it is to take away from Scripture."
Is the King James Version the Only Good Translation? - Eternal Perspectives Ministries (Randy Alcorn)
This article addresses the fact that all translations have verses or phrases that could be better translated, but the translation teams of the modern translations are seeking to share Scripture accurately. KJV Only teachers claim that modern translation teams purposely mistranslate.
"Such comparisons are not becoming nor loving, especially to those translators that are Christian brothers. I choose to think the best of why a translator seemingly mistranslates. For example, why did the translators of the KJV translate “Easter” in Ac. 12:4 (the word is lit. “Passover” and is in every other place in the KJV “Passover” Strongs number 3957)? Was it because that translator was a secret worshiper of the fertility god “Oster” (cf. “Easter” was a fertility goddess similar to the Biblical Ashtar)? Or was it more likely that the translator was trying to now give a Christian context for the time of year such a festival is held? Think the best of the translators and spend your energy trying to discover WHY they translated something different."
For a video explaining all of our English translations: Can I Trust Bible Translations?
(1) Concerns with The Message and The Passion "Translation."
Paraphrases versus Translations
Paraphrases of the Bible are not translations. Translations are made by a team of Bible scholars.
Paraphrases are written by a single author who is attempting to put the Bible into words that he feels a particular group will easily understand. He may or may not consult the original languages of Scripture.
Paraphrases should not be studied as your main source of Scripture and everything in them should be tested against a genuine translation because sometimes the author has an agenda.
Popular paraphrases include The Message, The Living Bible (not the same as the New Living Translation), and The Passion Translation (not really a translation).
More on The Message Paraphrase:
In 2017, Eugene Peterson publicly shared ideas that were not Scriptural in regard to homosexuality. He later retracted his statements when Lifeway Publishers prepared to stop selling his books (source, source). However, Peterson's attitudes toward homosexuality are reflected in passages about homosexuality in The Message. This is perhaps the most damaging area where Peterson's opinions are reflected in The Message paraphrase, but not the only place. I do not recommend using The Message unless you are extremely careful to compare it with legitimate translations.
In 2017, Eugene Peterson publicly shared ideas that were not Scriptural in regard to homosexuality. He later retracted his statements when Lifeway Publishers prepared to stop selling his books (source, source). However, Peterson's attitudes toward homosexuality are reflected in passages about homosexuality in The Message. This is perhaps the most damaging area where Peterson's opinions are reflected in The Message paraphrase, but not the only place. I do not recommend using The Message unless you are extremely careful to compare it with legitimate translations.
More on The Passion Translation:
I have concerns with someone who titles their paraphrase a "translation" when it is not one, but that is only one of many concerns associated with the The Passion paraphrase and with the author Brian Simmons. I recommend this video for a full explanation of concerns: My Concerns About The Passion Translation and Brian Simmons. I do not recommend using The Passion "Translation."
I have concerns with someone who titles their paraphrase a "translation" when it is not one, but that is only one of many concerns associated with the The Passion paraphrase and with the author Brian Simmons. I recommend this video for a full explanation of concerns: My Concerns About The Passion Translation and Brian Simmons. I do not recommend using The Passion "Translation."
Hi! I'm Gail Burton Purath. I started Bible Love Notes to give people a minute of Scriptural encouragement in their busy day.
I don't have all the answers, but
since I asked Christ to be my Lord and Savior in 1974, I've been learning from the One Who has all the answers!
I'm still a sinner, a learner, a student who falls down and disappoints God at times. But it's my desire to grow closer to the Lord, day by day, minute by minute.
I need to be challenged, encouraged, corrected and comforted, and I think you do as well...so let's learn together about the love of God--a love that is so vast that we will always be discovering new and wonderful things about it.
No comments:
Post a Comment