| Vivid Christianity |
|
| Teaching Christians how to live a "vivid" Christian life. | |
|
The "King James Only" View Is Mistaken
Introduction
Some people believe that the King James Version (KJV), which was first published in 1611 and is also known as the King James Bible (KJB) and the Authorized Version ("AV 1611"), is the only English version of the Bible that contains the true words of God. Therefore, they believe that all modern translations of the Bible (such as the NIV, NASB, Amplified Bible, etc.) are corrupt. This debate concerning the KJV vs. the modern translations of the Bible is often referred to as the "KJV-Only Controversy." Some people in the "KJV-Only" group say that God re-inspired the Bible in 1611 and that the KJV is therefore infallible and inerrant, while others such as Peter Ruckman 
say that the KJV is a new revelation from God that is superior to the existing Hebrew and Greek manuscripts and that the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts should be corrected by the KJV (also see
King James Only movement ).
In this article we'll carefully examine the King James Only controversy in order to determine whether or not the NIV and other modern translations of the Bible are "bloodless" or corrupt. This is an important issue because we need to know which translations of the Bible are trustworthy. A Brief History of Bible Translations
Sometime around 132 BC, the Hebrew Scriptures (basically the same as our Old Testament) were translated into Greek. This Greek version of the Old Testament is known as the "Septuagint "
because 70 translators worked on this project, and stories began to circulate that there had been divine providence and miraculous inspiration in the creation of the Septuagint.
For example, one website says that the Septuagint is "A version of the Bible that is translated into Greek in Alexandria by 70 authors. The authors did not compare their work but produced 70 identical versions" (see Septuagint ).
Another article says that "The legend was that seventy-two translators worked in individual cells, and when they came together to compare their work, their translations were exactly the same! Many thought that the Septuagint (or LXX for the 70 elders) was divinely inspired" (see
Jerome's Bible Legacy ). So the Septuagint was a new translation of the Bible around 132 BC that some people believed was
inspired
by God, which is exactly how the AV 1611 is viewed by many people in the KJV-Only group today.
As we can see, this type of controversy is nothing new. In the early fifth century AD, a man named Jerome translated the Hebrew Scriptures into Latin. His new version of the Bible nearly caused a riot, but it wasn't because anyone felt that his version was inaccurate, it was simply because his version was different and unfamiliar (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.11-12). For example, one author says that "Jerome was often criticized for using the Hebrew text rather than the Septuagint as the basis for his translation, but he rightly argued that the Septuagint was not inspired and that a better translation could be made from the Hebrew, the original language of the Old Testament" (see Jerome's Bible Legacy ).
Jerome was accused of changing the Word of God, which is exactly the accusation that the KJV-Only group makes against the modern Bible translations today. The accusers in Jerome's day were not taking the ancient Hebrew manuscripts as the standard, but instead they were taking the Septuagint translation as the standard. The "Septuagint-Only" group (so to speak) believed that the Septuagint was the Word of God, just like the KJV-Only group believes that the KJV is the Word of God today. So again, this type of controversy is nothing new. A thousand years later, Jerome's translation of the Bible had become known as the Latin Vulgate, and it was "accepted as the authorized Latin version of the Western church" (The History of Christianity, Dr. Tim Dowley, p.196). After the Latin Vulgate had been copied and re-copied so many times that copying errors had crept into it, in 1516 a man named Erasmus published the first printed edition of the Greek New Testament (The History of Christianity, Dr. Tim Dowley, p.365). His New Testament had the Greek text side-by-side with his own Latin translation, which caused him to be labeled as a heretic by the "Vulgate-Only" group (so to speak) for "tampering" with the Word of God (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.16-17). So again, this type of controversy is nothing new. Were the KJV Translators KJV-Only?
Some people in the KJV-Only group believe that the KJV was re-inspired by God in 1611, and therefore they believe that the KJV is infallible and inerrant. But is that what the KJV translators believed? Let's go back to Erasmus, whose Greek texts were used in creating the KJV. Many of the arguments that modern translators use when defending their work against KJV-Only attacks are the very same arguments that Erasmus used to defend his work (which became the KJV) against Vulgate-Only attacks. For example, the KJV-Only group often criticizes modern scholars for using the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, arguing that this implies we must learn Hebrew and Greek in order to understand what the Bible says. Erasmus received the very same criticisms when he published the Greek texts that were used in creating the KJV. He replied that with the help of the ancient Greek manuscripts, many corrupt passages in the Latin Vulgate had been restored, and many passages had been clarified that were being misinterpreted (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.56). One of Erasmus' critics went so far as to say that if the ancient Greek texts differ from the Latin Vulgate, then he would bid the Greeks goodbye and stick to the Latin (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.56). Ironically, some people in the modern KJV-Only group say the same thing about the KJV. Erasmus answered this with a simple question: "What will you do with the errors of the copyists?" Erasmus understood that hand-written copies can contain human errors, which is why he tried to compare all of the Greek manuscripts that he could find in order to determine the most accurate wording. Yet some people in the KJV-Only group claim that the KJV was divinely inspired, even though it was based on Erasmus' work. Erasmus went on to say, "Does it not happen frequently that from several faulty manuscripts - though not faulty in the same way - the true and genuine reading is found?" (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.57). Erasmus and others whose work became the basis for the KJV never claimed divine inspiration. In fact, they did exactly what the modern translators have done by comparing as many manuscripts as possible in order to determine the best and most accurate wording. So it turns out that Erasmus (whose Greek texts were used in creating the KJV) refuted many of the arguments that are made by the KJV-Only group today against the modern translations of the Bible. The KJV translators did not use just one Greek text, but they mainly used the text that Erasmus created, plus the revisions of that text that were done by Stephanus and then Beza (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.62). All three of these men made annotations or margin notes to explain various textual differences that they found in the ancient manuscripts. They made their best judgments during the translation process, and they made a number of revisions and corrections of their work. When there were differences in these sources, the KJV translators had to choose between the different editions made by these men. After the AV 1611 was published, new and corrected versions of the KJV came out in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1727, and so on (see for example The English Bible from KJV to NIV ).
It's not likely that any of the KJV translators would have agreed with the KJV-Only group that any edition of the KJV was inerrant or divinely inspired by God.
Also, it's interesting that the KJV-Only group often says, "Isn't the KJV good enough for you?," because the very same argument was originally made against the KJV itself. In the preface to the AV 1611, the KJV translators replied to this by saying that they wanted to make something even better out of that which was already good. Here's a quote from the original preface in the AV 1611: "Yet for all that, as nothing is begun and perfected at the same time, and the later thoughts are thought to be the wiser: so, if we building upon their foundation that went before us, and being holpen by their labours, do endeavour to make that better which they left so good, no man, we are sure, hath cause to mislike us; they, we persuade ourselves, if they were alive, would thank us" (see A Reprint of the Original Preface to the King James (Authorized) Version 1611So the people who created the original KJV felt that it's good to build upon earlier foundations to make a better translation of the Bible. Notice that if this is true for the KJV then it's also true for the NIV and other modern translations of the Bible. For more on what the KJV translators believed, and how their views contradict the views of the KJV-Only group, see What Did the King James Translators Believe About Translation? .
In addition, the KJV-Only group tends to condemn the modern Bible translations for having footnotes that give alternate wordings for various passages, as if this forces the readers to choose what they want the Bible to say. Yet the KJV translators themselves included alternate wordings in the margin notes of the KJV, just as the modern translations do. As we've seen, the KJV-Only viewpoint is directly opposite to the viewpoint of the people who made the KJV, and the people who made the KJV had to defend themselves against the very same attacks that the KJV-Only group makes against the modern translations today. Issues Involved in Making New Translations of the Bible
In order to understand why there are differences between the KJV and the modern translations of the Bible, we need to understand some things about the way in which Bible translations are made. This will help us determine if the KJV-Only group is right in accusing the modern translations of "deleting" doctrines and "changing" the Word of God. First of all, Psalm 12:6-7 KJV says that God will preserve His words, but notice that it does not say that God was specifically referring to the KJV. In a way, God preserved His Word through the explosion of hand-written copies that appeared all across the known world in the centuries after the cross. This prevented any single person or group from having control over the text of Scripture, which would have allowed them to tamper with the text (whether consciously or unconsciously). The fact that copies of Greek manuscripts are nearly identical even though they were made a thousand years apart is a testimony to the overall purity of the New Testament text (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.47-48). Translating from one language into another language is not as straightforward as it might seem. For example, in English we sometimes say, "I have a frog in my throat." If someone translates this expression into another language, would it be best to use a literal word-for-word translation ("I have a frog in my throat")? Or would it be best to use a thought-for-thought translation, trying to express the meaning ("My throat is a bit hoarse")? It's up to the translator to decide. A literal translation might not make any sense to the listeners, but trying to express the meaning involves interpreting what was said, which can cause wrong or misleading translations if the interpretation is inaccurate. Bible translators must choose whether to make a word-for-word translation of a passage or whether to make a thought-for-thought translation. The KJV is more of a word-for-word translation of the Bible, and the NIV is more of a thought-for-thought translation (although sometimes it's considered to be a combination of word-for-word and thought-for-thought). For a description of the type of translation that was done in numerous other versions of the Bible, see Bible Versions and Translations .
One of the complexities of translating the Bible into other languages is that there are three main families (called "text-types") of ancient New Testament manuscripts, which are referred to as the Alexandrian text-type, the Western text-type, and the Byzantine text-type. Within each family, the manuscripts have similar wording "due to common ancestors and mutual correction" (see New Testament ).
Erasmus relied heavily on the Byzantine text-type (also called the Majority Text), and his Greek New Testament tends to be referred to as the Textus Receptus, which became the basis for the KJV (see the above article). Modern translations such as the NIV tend to be Alexandrian in character (see the above article), which contributes to the differences between the KJV and many of the modern translations.
Another issue when translating the ancient manuscripts is that they were hand-copied over and over, and various copying errors crept into them. For example, if you ask ten people to make handwritten copies of a book of the Bible, someone will skip a word or a phrase that everyone else did not skip, or someone will misspell a word or two that others spelled correctly. But all ten people are not likely to make the same mistakes at the same places, so by comparing all ten copies it's easy to recreate the original text. In a similar way, scholars can get close to the original readings of the New Testament by comparing the thousands of ancient Greek manuscripts that are in existence today. Consider that if an ancient scribe left out a sentence or two and then realized his mistake, he couldn't just go to his computer and edit his document. Instead, he had to write the missing sentences in the margin so that the next scribe will know that he should add those sentences back into the text of Scripture. Sometimes scribes would also put little comments in the margins to explain certain passages of Scripture, so the next scribe often didn't know whether those comments should be inserted into the text or not. It seems that they sometimes chose to play it safe by simply adding all of the previous scribe's margin notes into the text of Scripture (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.50). Again, these textual differences often stand out clearly when thousands of ancient manuscripts are compared. Attacks against the Modern Translations by the KJV-Only Group
Some people have compared the modern translations of the Bible against the KJV and found that the wording is different, so they argue that the modern translations of the Bible have deleted important doctrinal concepts from Scripture. If a modern version of the Bible was made directly from the KJV, then it would make sense to compare it against the KJV to check its accuracy. But with the exception of the New King James Version, the American Standard Version (also known as the Revised Version), and the Revised Standard Version, the modern translations of the Bible were not made from the KJV, so it's wrong to compare those other Bibles against the KJV and then accuse them of deleting things from the KJV. The KJV is not the absolute standard against which all other translations should be compared. Some of the KJV-Only believers will disagree here, but the KJV does not have supremacy over the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. I've been asked why I use the "corrupt" NIV, so I did a thorough study of this "King James Only" controversy. In explaining why I use the NIV and other modern translations of the Bible, it's necessary to demonstrate why I disagree with the views of the KJV-Only group, and no offense to them is intended. But if we determine that the accusations against the modern translations of the Bible are not true, then we can be confident about using the modern translations in our Bible studies. Here are some representative accusations that the KJV-Only group makes against the modern translations, and why these accusations are flawed:
Again, these are some representative accusations that the KJV-Only group makes against the modern translations of the Bible, and why these accusations are flawed. Is the KJV Inerrant?
So far we've seen that the KJV was heavily based on the work of Erasmus, Stephanus, and Beza. We saw that these men made a number of revisions and corrections of their own work, and they included many margin notes to describe various textual differences and the reasons for the readings that they chose. They did not consider their Greek texts to be inspired and infallible. In addition, we saw that the KJV translators also included margin notes to explain the choices that they made between various textual differences, and we saw that they believed that new translations of the Bible should always be made directly from the Hebrew and Greek manuscripts. They did not consider the KJV to be inspired and infallible. In spite of what the KJV translators have said, some people in the KJV-Only group believe that the AV 1611 was directly inspired by God and is therefore infallible and inerrant. But this brings up a problem for them. The AV 1611 had significant errors in it, and it was revised and corrected in 1612, 1613, 1616, 1629, 1727, and so on (see for example The English Bible from KJV to NIV ).
In 1659, an article was written that described 20,000 errors that had been found in six editions of the KJV that were printed in the 1650s (The King James Only Controversy, James R. White, p.78-79).
If the KJV is supposed to be infallible and inerrant, then the KJV-Only group has a sticky problem: Which KJV is the infallible standard? This is not a problem for the rest of us because we don't hold a particular translation of the Bible as being infallible or inerrant (only the original manuscripts were infallible and inerrant), and we can understand the benefit of scholars using the Greek and Hebrew manuscripts to try to provide the most accurate translations possible. Even today, if you compare several copies of the KJV you'll find differences between them. So which one is the infallible standard? Here are some glaring examples of errors in the KJV:
These are major doctrinal errors, and the KJV-Only group would have a field day if these errors were in the modern translations of the Bible. Since different KJVs don't all say the same things, then how are we supposed to know which one is the "infallible" KJV? The answer of course is that none of them are infallible, just as none of the modern versions of the Bible are infallible. The KJV is imperfect, just as the other translations of the Bible are all imperfect (see my article called How to Study the Bible). Yet in spite of these clear problems in the KJV, some people claim that the KJV is infallible and inerrant. Conclusion
It's important for us to know which translations of the Bible are trustworthy. If the King James Version is the only trustworthy version of the Bible in English, then we need to know that. What we've seen, however, is that some people have taken certain verses from the NIV (and other modern translations of the Bible) out of context and have mistakenly decided that the modern versions of the Bible are corrupt. Many well-meaning Christians have made this error by comparing the modern translations of the Bible against the KJV and by assuming that the KJV should be the standard against which all Bibles need to be compared. However, Bible translations should be compared for accuracy against the ancient Hebrew and Greek manuscripts, not against the KJV. We've also seen that many of the accusations that are made against the modern translations of the Bible can also be made against the KJV itself. It's a double standard to accuse the other Bible translations of being corrupt, but not to accuse the KJV of being corrupt when it does the exact same things. Although the KJV is not perfect, it's still a worthy translation of the Bible, and many pastors and Bible teachers prefer to use it when they teach and preach. But it's not inerrant because we've seen a number of doctrinal and translational problems in various editions of the KJV. Modern scholars are able to study Greek manuscripts that were found after the King James translation was made (e.g., the Dead Sea Scrolls), and the accuracy of the modern translations of the Bible has benefited from this newer evidence. For the glory of the Lord Jesus, the Christ, the Son of God, who came in the flesh, was delivered over to death for our sins, and was raised to life for our justification. Dave Root home page and email: https://www.vividchristianity.com "Therefore I want you to know that no one who is speaking by the Spirit of God says, "Jesus be cursed," and no one can say, "Jesus is Lord," except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Corinthians 12:3) "Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist - denying the Father and the Son. No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also." (1 John 2:22-23) "If anyone acknowledges that Jesus is the Son of God, God lives in them and they in God." (1 John 4:15) "Dear friends, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, because many false prophets have gone out into the world. This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is already in the world." (1 John 4:1-3) "And this is love: that we walk in obedience to his commands. As you have heard from the beginning, his command is that you walk in love. I say this because many deceivers, who do not acknowledge Jesus Christ as coming in the flesh, have gone out into the world. Any such person is the deceiver and the antichrist." (2 John 1:6-7) "He was delivered over to death for our sins and was raised to life for our justification." (Romans 4:25) |
| Modification History |
|
| All Scripture quotations, unless otherwise indicated, are taken from the HOLY BIBLE, NEW INTERNATIONAL VERSION (R). NIV (R). Copyright (C) 1973, 1978, 1984, 2011 by International Bible Society. Used by permission of Zondervan Publishing House. All rights reserved. (Emphasis added.) |