Is The King James Version God's Version?
I know that there are many versions that are out there today. KJV, NKJV, RSV, NAS, NRSV, NIV, LIVING, and countless others.
If you are a minister or Bible class teacher you might have had to deal with people who believe the King James Version is the only right version of the Bible. I want to know how many ministers or Bible class teachers have come across these people while teaching? Let me know.
Other questions to discuss:
What is it about the KJV that people are so convinced that it is the only right version. Superior than all the others.Why? Does the KJV have mistakes? What mistakes have you seen in this translation?
If you are a preacher, what version do you preach from the pulpit? Why? and How have you had to re-teach others because of their view of
the KJV?
What do you think?
Share your thoughts.
posted by preacherman @ 2:14:00 PM
40 Comments:
I use the English Standard Version and the New Living Translation, depending on what points I want to make.
At my last position I often quoted parts of the KJV and often gave the words it used in class as a show of respect for those who were accustomed to its use.
I have never had any hardliners on the KJV though.
The KJV translates a Hebrew/Aramaic word in Gen 22:1 as "tempt" (God tempted Abraham), while in James 1:13, it translates a Greek word as "tempt" (God does not tempt). Clearly, God did not tempt Abraham, He tested him, He proved him. In using the same word, though, the KJV creates an inconsistency that could be corrected (and I believe HAS been, in the NKJV) by modifying the word choice.
And then there's the whole 2 Samuel 21:19 vs. 1 Chronicles 20:5 issue: who killed Goliath and who did Elhanan kill? The KJV "solves" the discrepancy in the Scripture source by adding the words "the brother of" into 2 Samuel 21:19. See this for an explanation of the issue.
Preacherman, I appreciate the post.
I have come across this a few times. I think it is more than a translational issue. It is a paradigm issue. I am not sure if people think it is the only version because it says "authorized version" or just because that is what they grew up on and other things are unfamiliar.
Warning, ramblings ahead:
The KJV is loaded with problems. It has manuscript problems - they didn't have many at all to work from. The manuscripts they used were only a few hundred years old in 1611. There were 500 or so words they didn't have any extrabiblical examples of. Today that number is well under 100 if my memory is right. One interesting story in the history of translation is how Erasmus was trying to put together a Greek text of the NT he lacked the final page of revelation so he backwards translated from Latin to Greek!
The KJV has problems with word choice. The words they used then don't all mean the same thing. For example: I believe it is in the psalms the KJV says God "winks" at sin. That didn't mean the same thing then as it does now.
The KJV is loaded up with words we don't understand without looking them up. Jack Lewis compiled a list of hundreds of words that are extremely difficult to figure out today and he has a Ph.D. in Old Testament from Hebrew Union and a Ph.D. in New Testament from Harvard!
Their coloquialisms/figures of speech were entirely different in 1611 than today.
Today we have a better understanding of the language, better manuscripts, translations that put things in words people understand while still conveying the meaning of the text.
Just a few thoughts. Here are a couple of great books on this subject if you ever want to study it:
Jack P. Lewis - KJV to the NIV
Jack P. Lewis - Questions You Have asked about the KJV
D.A. Carson - The KJV Debate.
One observation I have made is that there seems to be a cycle when it comes to translations. I don't have all the names and dates in front of me but it goes like this: NT translated Greek to Latin - uproar. "You can't do that!" When translated from Latin to English - uproar. "You can't do that!" Now when translated from English to a more up to date English - uproar. "You can't do that!" It seems things never change. People have even lost their lives over these debates.
Maybe I will get my thoughts together and post something about this in the next day or two on my blog.
The scholars who worked on the KJV were also not above manipulating the text so as to include something of their own devising. One example which demonstrates this well is the manipulation of Psalm 46 to include a personal tribute to William Shakespeare (1564-1616), who turned 46 years of age just a few months before the publication date of the KJV. It was dedicated to him in honor of his influence upon the English language of his day.
Count down 46 words from the beginning of this psalm and you will find the word "Shake." Count up 46 words from the end of this psalm and you will find the word "Spear." Thus, 46 words down added to 46 words up in the 46th psalm will give the name "Shakespeare" in honor of his 46th birthday.
I believe that the attraction of the KJV is due to it's classic elegance, since it was written by the great writers of the Elizabethan era. Shakespeare is believed to have helped with some of the Psalms.
It gives off that feeling of being on a higher plane, with such elevated diction. But while elevated, that does not necessarily mean accurate, which I am not an expert on, but I've heard there are some problems with it.
My Bible is NIV, and it does the job well.
And I will also add, that I do have a problem with newer Bibles that tend to dumb down the language or to make the diction almost trendy by using colloquialisms that don't really belong in a Holy Book, and seem to have the same problems that the King James has in reverse...
Namely, the sacrifice of accuracy for style.
As a former English teacher, I love the language of the KJV (Authorized Version). It is after all the language of Shakespeare. One scholar observed that it was no accident that the English version of the Scriptures which caught on throughout the English-speaking world was the same language that brought the theater to the masses--people could now have their entertainment and their religion in language that they understood. This btw, caused an uproar among many pious people who claimed that the English version they used (older than KJV) was more acceptable than one authorized by the "devil king" James.
Although I love the language, think that it's beautiful and great for presentations of a theatrical nature, as a preacher I would rather spend my time in sermon delivery using language that I do not have to explain. I rarely go into Greek or Hebrew lessons. I can't recall using the LXX for any sermons and therefore needing to go into a lesson in Latin (which I would utterly fail in).
Today, I most often use NIV for my reading from the pulpit. I use several translations, ancient and modern, in my study. As the language changes, I hope that I am astute enough to adjust my own preferences in order to do just what I'm talking about--use language that the people understand.
I have encountered those who, because I preach from a translation other than the KJV, will not attend churh when they know I am preaching. As we all know, if KJV was good enough for Paul and Silas . . .
'Scuse me while I correct myself. I mentioned the Greek and then the Greek Suptuagint (LXX). All the while I was trying to reference the Latin Vulgate--preferred reading for centuries in the Catholic church. Even so--I still avoid Greek, Hebrew, and Latin from the pulpit.
When asked about which Bible version he preferred, one old gent from the hills of Western North Carolina where I grew up was reported to have said, "Bless God, we don't use nothin' but the Saint Jane Virgin". Often those who most fiercely defend the KJB do so out of ignorance. Now, let me be quick to say that I don't believe there is much better for accuracy.
I prefer the NKJV over the KJV. It is more readible and changes some archiac words to more modern words without loosing the integrity of the thought of the original manuscript.
As for the NIV, the editors took the liberty of not only bringing the revelation of God to modern man in his language but also leave out completely words and phrases. That is a liberty I believe that was in error.
There are many good sources for discussions on the versions of the Bible and I have poured over them for hours upon end and have settled upon the NKJV for now.
Grace and Peace,
Royce Ogle
Another unfortunate product of the language of the 1611 KJV is found in Proverbs 4:12, which is in the middle of one of my favorite passages in the Bible: the exhortation to get Wisdom and prize her above all else.
When thou goest, thy steps shall not be straitened; and when thou runnest, thou shalt not stumble. (Proverbs 4:12)
If I were hearing that in 1700, I'd probably know what "straitened" meant. But if a person today were to hear it, they'd probably hear "straightened" and be confused. Granted, reading the text would lead you to identifying the proper word, but I would think that the Bible should not be confusing whether read or heard.
The NKJV uses "hindered" instead, which is a synonym of "straitened" that isn't a homonym of some totally opposite word.
The originals didn't really have punctuation. It is so frustrating to learn Greek from nice, clean, and punctuated texts and then look at an early manuscript of something as simple as the Gospel of John and get thrown for a loop.
The term for the non-literal/"thought" translation is dynamic equivalence. People who want a word for word translation don't have a clue what they are talking about. You just can't do it and have it make any sense.
The NIV does have some unfortunate translations, sarx in the NT for instance.
I prefer the NRSV but when teaching typically use the NIV for ease of those trying to follow along.
I have a lot of respect for the KJV. It is a very literal translation and highly accurate when the KJV English language is understood properly. That of course is the weakness.
Some manuscripts discovered since the writing of the KJV have caused some to question certain passages. It can be debated (and is hotly debated) whether the Received Text and Majority Text sources (more or less the sources used for the KJV) are superior or inferior to the more recently discovered but older manuscripts. Consider for example Mark 16:9-20. In the NIV there is a comment which says the "earliest and most reliable manuscripts" do not have that passage. But when they revised the NIV to create "Today's New International Version" they backed off from that statement, saying instead "The earliest manuscripts and some other ancient witnesses do not have Mark 16:9-20". The point is that they were strongly criticized for assuming that the oldest manuscripts were the most reliable. (Note that the Diatessaron is a harmony of the gospels created around 170-175 AD, and it contains those verses. It also seems that Justin Martyr quoted a few phrases from this passage in 155 AD. And Ireneas quoted the passage in 177 AD). The handful of manuscripts lacking the passage date from the fourth century.
It does not seem reasonable to me that God would permit such a section of his Word to be lost for 1800 years.
Almost all modern translations incorporate the more recently discovered manuscripts, on the theory that the older manuscripts are better. IMO, that is not a sufficiently strong theory to omit a passage like the end of Mark 16 from the Bible.
The majority text is inferior for a plethora of reasons. The majority text is a constructed text that takes each word that occurs most frequently for a given word in a given verse across manuscripts. Errors increase over time as things are copied. That means that often the majority reading is in error as it the original scribal error is copied over and over again.
It seems like a good idea to do a simple word count and see which word is there most. The problem is not all texts are equally reliable. You cannot have a 1 for 1 equality across all texts counting older texts (which there are fewer of) equal with newer texts (which there are thousands of). It just doesn't make sense and puts the KJV and weak ground in many instances.
However, I do respect the generations of faithful Christians who were able to follow God with all their hearts based on their understanding of the KJV. That cannot be questioned.
In regard to Mark 16 - even if it was not in the orignial, which I am not going to argue for or against (See Metzgers Textual Commentary for the evidence), everything in that passage is found elsewhere in the New Testament. If the end of Mark 16 were thrown out, we wouldn't lose a single doctrine or point of history.
Great discussion and comments everyone.
As a minister I study with the ASV and preach from the NIV.
I just in my ministry have come across those who are dogmatic about the KJV and that all the other ones are irrelevant. No matter how you try to convence they are unwilling to change their views.
I don't know anyone who reads the NIV or other versions that are that dogmatic about their translations.
Do you think all this comes from preachers in the past who made people feel like the KJV was the only right version. Was it preachers in the past who have made others feel like they have to read the KJV. Have preachers of the past made people this dogmatic about a translation?
What do you think?
Hi Matt,
Experts don't agree on whether the Majority Text is "inferior" or the best source available. A lot depends on the philosophy you bring to the table to consider the question. Every translation we have is derived from some compilation of many different manuscripts. It is an inexact science. Tradeoffs, theories and educated guesses are about all that separates the various choices. And you are correct in saying that none of these differences places a significant doctrine in question.
My point is that I respect the opinions of those who hold to the KJV and the original language texts on which it was based. OTOH I currently have 34 different versions in my bible software if I counted right (several are Greek). I use NIV and ESV most but I frequently refer to KJV and others to compare wording.
Preacherman - I think part of the reason some people still hang onto KJV is that they can't accept the omission (or the discrediting margin notes) of certain passages in the newer translations. People who grew up hearing those verses in the scriptures have a hard time accepting that they may not be legitimate.
There is also the familiarity factor. Obviously that mainly applies to the older generation.
Alan, I appreciate your comments. Familiarity is key in a lot of this issue. Jimmy Allen has said that the KJV is easier to memorize because it is different than what we are used to hearing in everyday speech (or something along those lines). In regard to what people bring to the table, there are many methodological issues in this debate. Maybe I will post later on some of those...just don't have the time right now. Thanks for your comments. I appreciate them.
Hi, preacherman, I just noticed a comment you left on my dad's blog (Bob Bliss) & was curious to check out yours. While I don't have much education in Biblical studies (just a few Bible courses at Harding--I am, after all, a lowly woman! just teasin'--I enjoyed your post about women in the church & might comment on that later), the topic of KJV vs. other translations is of interest to me. When we first moved to Virginia 5 years ago, my husband read Scripture during worship, & was almost immediately asked to read from something other than the NIV--either the KJV, NKJV or NASV. My husband, who was & still is struggling spiritually was very turned off by that. Now, I'm not suggesting that the church cater to anyone, or give allowances to some just because they're struggling, but it seems to me that this is not the kind of thing that's going to draw in their visitors, believing Christians or not. Reading the KJV is difficult for the layman to understand. That's why many of you read from the NIV during your sermons, am I correct? Those of us who study the Bible, but do not have much time to study outside sources on the Bible, will have a hard time with the language in the KJV.
It's also been my experience that churches who use KJV only are of the more conservative type. I realize that none of your other commenters wanted to touch the conservative issue, & that's not my agenda either, but I want to know if it's worth it to be conservative, to stay stable (not growing) because you're not willing to give a little. There are areas where you can "give," aren't there?
So, that's two questions for you. I hope my ignorance on the subject doesn't annoy you!
By the way, Matt Dabbs, I've checked out your blog & really enjoy it as well. Maybe you'll be hearing from me one of these days!
Always learning, Lisa
Lisa,
Thanks for your comment.
I teach and preach out of the NIV. I personally believe it is a great translation and easy to understand written on about a 5th grade level where the KJV from what I understand is on a 12th grade level or higher. Maybe that is why some prefer it. Make them feel smarter. I know some people are threatened by the NIV but most Americans read, communicate and understand on a 5th grade level (I am not saying we are stupid or uneducated). We don't speak KJV. It is harder for the average person to understand. I don't know many average laymen who say their favorite author is Shakespear.
I agree that yes, those churches who use KJV only are usually more conservative in form and thought. I do believe there are definately areas in which you can give and translations of the Bible would be one of them.
Great thoughts. I would love for you and your dad to comment and add to the discussion anytime.
God bless.
Clinton E. Arnold has an interesting artile in the Leadership Journal Nov-Dec, 2002. He charts different translations on grade level and a few other things. Here were his results. If you want other translations I may be able to run some grade level equivalence on it if I can find the text in digital form.
Version Grade Level
KJV 12
NKJV 9
NRSV 10.4
NASB 11.0
NIV 7.8
TEV 7.29
Living B 8.3
CEV 5.4
New Living 6.3
Message 4.8
He debunks one often made point in mentioning that that both the New Living and the Message are both translations (meaning they did look at the original language in producing it and not just from English translations). The Message tends to incorporate a more detailed explanation of what is there. The NLT is a dynamic equivalence translation.
Word for word translations include:
NASB, KJV, NKJV, ESV, RSV, NRSV
Balanced translations between word for word and dynamic equivalence:
HCSB, NIV, TNIV
Dynamic equivalence (or "thought for thought"):
REB, NLT, NCV, TEV, CEV, LB, Message
Personally when I study I like to use a word for word (NRSV) and one that incorporates more dynamic equivalence (thought for thought) in order to get a good balance of what is there (NIV). Of course I also like to look at the Greek and Hebrew so that I can form my own opinions instead of relying on a translation. I really think the NRSV is a very good quality translation and if the NIV weren't so popular I would preach/teach out of the NRSV.
Warren
I am a School teacher from Queensland, Australia and I have recently moved to a mining town called Mt Isa (pop- 20000). We (my wife and 4 boys)decide to attend a Christian Outreach Centre in our new town as it seemed to be more suited to families. We have been hear about 3 months, however over the past couple of weeks our Pastor has preached from the pulpit that the NIV is not from the Holy Spirit and that if you read it you are being deceived, he also said that Christian rock and roll was of the devil - whhich cuts out Hillsong music straight away. The upshot of it all is that we are disturbed that he would express his personal views of translations across the pultpi, so much so that we are considering fellowshiping elsewhere. I would appreciate your comments on this.
It would be interesting to see what he thought was "deceptive" about the NIV? It would also be interesting to know what translation he thought was appropriate.
he says that the NIV was written by homosexuals and witches and that th KLV is the only true Bible
Hi Kinney,
I know you posted this a long time ago, but recently I came across this website: http://www.biblesforamerica.org/ and wanted to know if you had heard of it the version it talks about. I requested a copy and it has arrived, but I haven't had a chance to really look at it.
There are basically TWO translations of the New Testament:
1 - those based on a lot of Byzantine texts
2 - those based on a few Alexandrian texts
In the last half of the 19th century, Wescott and Hort translated the New Testament from the Greek Codex Vaticanus and Codex Sinaiticus Alexandrian texts.
Every Bible originating after that (1900-forward) uses this Wescott/Hort translation for their New Testament basis.
That translation is corrupt all the way back to the beginning.
The writers of those two Codexes were 'founders" of the Catholic church and favored gnosticism and felt they knew best on what the Bible means. Their translations contained their beliefs that reduces Jesus' role.
many preachers of the 1800's of enlightenment felt this same way and geared everything towards their beliefs.
So, coming into the 1900's .. most of the Christian movement was towards these new translations.
The only places they differ with the King James (which is based on the heroic translations of Wycliffe, Luther, Erasmus, ..., all martyrs) are places where the modern versions remove scripture praising Jesus.
Do your own research and prove it to yourself .. it's incredible !!!
I believe it is the work of Satan to fool those on the fence.
It is God and the Holy Spirit that do the work of Saving .. so any Bible can save . . .
But to know what is really being said in the Bible and to gain from its Majesty, I think you need to read the King James.
God Bless.
gucci outlet, louboutin outlet, longchamp handbags, tory burch outlet, longchamp outlet, true religion jeans, louis vuitton outlet, air max, oakley sunglasses, louis vuitton outlet, louis vuitton, jordan shoes, burberry outlet, tiffany and co, louis vuitton handbags, michael kors outlet, kate spade handbags, ray ban sunglasses, air max, oakley sunglasses, michael kors outlet, louboutin, tiffany and co, oakley sunglasses cheap, kate spade outlet, michael kors outlet, prada outlet, burberry outlet, michael kors outlet, nike shoes, coach factory outlet, nike free, louboutin, polo ralph lauren outlet, louis vuitton outlet stores, chanel handbags, christian louboutin shoes, prada handbags, michael kors outlet, polo ralph lauren outlet, coach purses, michael kors outlet, coach outlet store online, true religion jeans, ray ban sunglasses, longchamp handbags, coach outlet
insanity workout, north face jackets, giuseppe zanotti, chi flat iron, ugg boots, p90x, birkin bag, longchamp, ferragamo shoes, rolex watches, herve leger, hollister, canada goose, babyliss pro, ugg australia, canada goose, canada goose jackets, reebok outlet, ghd, soccer shoes, ugg, nfl jerseys, nike roshe run, north face outlet, valentino shoes, mont blanc, celine handbags, nike huarache, new balance shoes, canada goose outlet, ugg boots, canada goose, mcm handbags, beats by dre, bottega veneta, wedding dresses, soccer jerseys, marc jacobs, canada goose uk, mac cosmetics, ugg pas cher, vans shoes, jimmy choo outlet, instyler, uggs outlet, asics running shoes, lululemon outlet, abercrombie and fitch
lancel, canada goose, timberland boots, pandora charms, thomas sabo, moncler outlet, hollister, canada goose, moncler, hollister clothing store, converse, ray ban, louis vuitton, rolex watches, iphone 6 cases, oakley, juicy couture outlet, vans, karen millen, pandora jewelry, ugg, moncler, air max, supra shoes, swarovski crystal, swarovski, pandora charms, moncler, moncler, converse shoes, gucci, ugg, louboutin, montre homme, air max, hollister, coach outlet store online, links of london, baseball bats, juicy couture outlet, ralph lauren, parajumpers, moncler, toms shoes, wedding dresses, moncler
wolverine boots
fitflops
kyrie 4 shoes
ferragamo outlet
fitflops
canada goose jackets
canada goose outlet
canada goose
mikimoto pearls
kate spade outlet
mt20180613
Watch your favorite TV Shows Pinoy Tambayan Pinoy Teleserye Replay Pinoy TV Series Pinoy TV Pinoy Lambingan Pinoy Channel online for free! Also Watch.pinoy Flix Tv Tambayan
Watch your favorite TV Shows Pinoy Tambayan Pinoy Teleserye Replay Pinoy TV Series Pinoy TV Pinoy Lambingan Pinoy Channel online for free! Also Watch.pinoy Flix Tv Tambayan
It’s actually a nice and helpful piece of info. I’m glad that you shared this useful info with us. Please keep us up to date like this. Thanks for sharing.
Pinoy Lambingans
..
Mehndi Hai Rachne Wali is Star Plus & Hotstar started newly launched Drama Serial
Raghav puts necklace on Kirti, Kirti thanks Pallavi, Pallavi says thank Raghav
Ghum Hai Kisi Ke Pyar Mein
Pinoy Channele bringing you best videos from all over Filipino entertainment, sports,
news, politics, technology, music, covering all Latest Tv Replay Show of Pinoy Teleserye.
24 Oras
From MX Player original hindi shows to Hindi dubbed shows you can make your
weekend full of entertainment with these top 10 hindi web series streaming
Bade Achhe Lagte Hain 2 is a upcoming Hindi Indian soap opera that will
premiere on 30 August 2021 at 8:00 P.M. in Sony Entertainment Television.
Anupama
Today's episode starts with Kanta getting emotional. Anuj asks Kanta
what happened. Devika asks Kanta if she said anything wrong. Anupama asks
Anupama
Star Star Plus Hindi Desi Serials Watch Online Hotstar Official Video. Latest Updates Enjoy full episodes Yeh Rishta Kya Kehalta Hai live.
Bhagya Lakshmi
If you have intrested in drawing or anime or surrender then visit my Given Ulr. This is very help website. thanks!
Painting with a twist
Painting with a twist
surrender at 20
usa store online
google draw
Drawing base – Online Drawing
KissAsian is the best website to Korean dramas and movies online free with
English Subtitles and Dubbed. This website Chris Gayle, movies of genres ...
DramaCool is korean tv kshow123 website which provides latest
Korean drama, movies, Kshow and kissasian dramas with english
subtitles online free in hd quality. DramaCool for everyone!
Munawar, Shivangi Joshi, Divyanka Tripathi, Anjali Arora and Poonam Pandey
are rumoured to be entering Bigg Boss season 16. When it comes to
Post a Comment
<< Home