Is the King James Version of the Bible the only translation
of the Bible that we should read? As a child I was taught that it was the only
accurate Bible, and my BA degree in Bible came from a KJV only college. I love
the KJV, and it is the only translation I have ever taught or preached from.
But is it the only Bible we should read?
Before I begin, I want to be clear that this is by no means
an exhaustive review of this topic, for that could go on and on. This is just
designed to point out a few surface level points.
The KJV only crowd likes to criticize the newer translations
by asserting that they are leaving out words, phrases, or verses, and that they
change words. The problem with this line of thinking is that they are comparing
these newer translations to the KJV and not to original texts. For example,
when the KJV-onlies criticize some for leaving
out verses 9-20 of Mark 16, they are missing the fact that those verses do
not appear in any ancient texts. Those verses were actually additions by the
KJV translators who were worried that Mark’s gospel didn’t include any eye
witnesses of the resurrection.
Other words and phrases that were allegedly left out are
actually just phrases where the old English of the KJV was unnecessarily
repetitive.
KJV only defendants use verses like “I am the Lord, I change
not” to defend their point. If that verse means that we should not change from
the Bible that we have, then we had better all become fluent in ancient Hebrew
and Greek. As I will point out here, they make the mistake of believing that
the KJV was the first Bible ever produced.
They also use biblical commands to not add to or take away
from the Word of God. They use these verses to usher in strong warnings about
these newer translations, but again, theirs is the one that has added to. [1]
So the question isn’t whether the NIV left out verses, but
whether the KJV added them. It isn’t fair to attack a translation for leaving
out something that was not inspired in the first place.
Websites like http://jesus-is-lord.com/kjvdefns.htm have a
list of verses that are left out of the NIV, but the reality is that these
verses were added by the KJV.
In the same way that the KJV translators added verses for
clarification, they also tweaked other words to please King James. John the
Baptist should be known as John the Immerser, but King James did not believe in
immersion for baptism, so the word was changed.
KJV-onlies like to say that theirs is the most formal
translation. They believe that there is more holiness in their thee’s and
thou’s and their adding “eth” to every other word. The King James Version has
many words that have other meanings today, and all of this together makes the
document difficult to understand.
On this point, I once had a KJV only pastor point in my face
and scream at me, “If you can’t understand the KJV with a simple dictionary,
you have problems.” But the real problem is the fact that the KJV requires a
dictionary. The New Testament writers chose to write in a style of Greek known
as koine, which was the most common
and understood form in its day. It would be the equivalent of an elementary
school comprehension level.
So while I agree that the KJV is very poetic in its sound, especially
in the Psalms, that is not a reason to condemn other translations. The Bible
was never meant to be something that required a Master of Divinity to
understand; it was written by common people for common people.
Even though I preach from my King James, when I come to a
passage that mentions a donkey, I say donkey out loud, but we all know that
there is another three letter word used for donkey. The king James also refers
to men as those who “[urinate] against the wall.” Of course, their word for
urinate is a word most of us would wash our children’s mouth out with soap for
using. On this passage I once heard a pastor say that those words aren’t foul
because the Bible says all the words of Christ are wholesome words. Once again,
this mindset shows that the KJV-onlies think that Jesus spoke King James. The
Holy Spirit didn’t inspire those words, He inspired them in Greek and Hebrew,
and now, hundreds of years after their English translations, those words have a
different meaning.
Other words in the KJV are different. The KJV uses the word
conversation to mean lifestyle, and it makes a huge mess out of Hades by always
translating it as hell. When newer
translations try to update these words, the KJV only proponents get upset. But
this is contradictory because the KJV translators themselves used to do this.
1611 was the year that the KJV was authorized and translated
into English. Every few years a team of scholars met to update the words in
that translation, always being careful to make sure that the words had their
true meaning and that it was on the common man’s level. But 1798 was the last
year that this happened. So when the New King James Version (NKJV) was
released, it was nothing more than what the KJV scholars had done for almost
two complete centuries, and yet the KJV-onlies were against it. All the NKJV
did was change the thou’s to you’s and leave off the eth’s (they also corrected
the hell/Hades problem).
To be clear, I do not support every translation that comes
down the pike. My last blog (The Message by Eugene Peterson, http://tommycmann.blogspot.com/2011/11/message-by-eugene-peterson.html) shows that, and my
next blog will as well. I am a textus receptus fan, which I will blog about
next, and that is where the KJV came from. A KJV only pastor, who was one of my
college professors, said that he supported the KJV because it came from the
textus receptus. I asked him if he would support a newer translation if it came
from the textus receptus, like the NAS, and his reply was, “Just stick to the
KJV.”
It has become apparent to me that the real reason that
people are KJV only is that they were raised that way. When confronted with
simple logic that refutes their beliefs, they become explosively angry and
spout out verses like, “Forever, oh Lord, thy word is settled in heaven.” (That
verse in no way proves their point, and once again shows that they think that Paul
and Peter directly wrote the King James) There is no logic that affirms that
the KJV is the only accurate English translation.
This blogeth wast copyrighted; thou shalt not add unto nor
taketh away from, lest thou be smitten with copyright infringement.
[1] To
be clear, these commands are in reference to people changing God’s Word for
their own gain. When translating a document from one language to another, there
will always be words added or subtracted. There are thousands more Greek words
than there are English words, so entire phrases have been added to English
Bibles. Good translations will italicize those added words.
Comments
Thank you for your comment, and I’m glad you stopped by. I appreciate your suggestion about losing the sarcasm, but to be honest, I didn’t think there was any sarcasm used. I always try to use a little humor, especially when dealing with a topic that makes people a little feisty, because the humor can relax people when they begin to get angry.
I believe that all Scripture is inspired, or “God-breathed,” as the word means. But the Scripture that God breathed was first in Hebrew, then in Greek. Every translation, from the Latin Vulgate and Greek Septuagint, down to the KJV and every other English translation, has had to deal with the issue of simply doing the best they could do. My next blog is going to look into this translation problem further.
But I believe that the English translations that have used the textus receptus to translate from are both reliable and accurate. When little words and phrases are added for clarification that does not constitute a contextual problem.
For example, “que pasa?” is a Spanish expression. It is literally translated into English as “what is passing?” But in order to translate the meaning of que pasa we would write “what’s up?” or “what’s going on?” I don’t have a problem with using different words to get the actual intent, even if words have to be added.
My point, though, is not that the KJV added words, but that its defenders criticize the newer translations for leaving out the words that the KJV added.
I said all that to say, whether a few words are added here or there or subtracted by others, if these texts use the best ancient manuscripts then they are still accurate.
I will write more about this later, but I wanted to answer your question.
Hello, and thank you; good to hear from you again. The info about the KJV being added to was not from a source, but just from my own work. The website I linked to from JesusisLord.com had a list of words that the NIV "left out," so I looked those passages up in the Hebrew and Greek using Bibleworks, and the ancient texts didn't have them. When I looked up the same passages in the NASB and the ESV their footnotes said that the oldest and best manuscripts do not contain this verse. Did that answer your question?
Donnie F
I agree, as I said in my first comment above, that these additions have not affected the Gospel. You might also enjoy my post next week, which will be called Literal Translation vs. Dynamic Equivalence