Articles
Making a Defense: King James Is NOT the Final Word
“But the wisdom from above is first pure, then peaceable, gentle, reasonable, full of mercy and good fruits, unwavering, without hypocrisy” (James 3:17). The word of God should bring about peace, and gentleness, not hypocrisy and dissension (cf. Galatians 5:19ff). Unfortunately, individuals become too passionate to the point of sin in their held beliefs that they are unable to see their own pride (cf. Proverbs 16:18). When this occurs, volatile disagreements can erupt, which can prevent the formation of godly relationships or hinder people of God’s kingdom. This is the case with the zealous advocates of the KJV-only philosophy.
Over the centuries as the Bible has been translated and made available to the masses, there has been a battle to provide an infallible written text. Some believe that it has been produced in the form of the “King James Version”. Ardent supporters of this viewpoint take it to the extreme and demonstrate their own hypocrisy, which is not of God. In this article, the goal will be to lay out that the KJV is not the be-all-end-all of translations and the exclusive version to be used by all Christians. As we progress, I will strive to help all to understand the history of the KJV, point out weaknesses in the translation, and establish that the KJV is a very useful translation, but even the translators themselves saw the benefit of other versions. By the end of this article, the prayer is that individuals will be better equipped in responding to those that espouse the KJV-only belief.
One misperception that needs to be thrown out immediately is the fact that the KJV is the first Bible translation or first-written Bible in English. In reality, “The beginnings of the English Bible go back to the middle of the seventh century” (Neil R. Lightfoot, How We Got the Bible, 174). History well notes that a number of individuals worked and died to bring about the Bible into the English language. One must realize the difficult and potentially perilous task that these dedicated men and women were taking upon themselves to go against the papacy. Some of the individuals include: Aldhelm, Bede, William of Shoreham, Richard Rolle, and John Wycliffe. Wycliffe’s life epitomized the standard of these pioneers in that his desire was for the common person to have God’s Word in their native tongue. This goal was met in 1382 with the help of his students who produced the first English translation of the complete Bible from Latin. Several years later, a revision was made by the Lollards, followers of Wycliffe.
John Wycliffe was a pioneer, but it was William Tyndale that was considered to be the “true father of the English Bible” (Lightfoot, 176). Tyndale’s ambitious goal was to translate the Bible from its original languages, something that had not been done and that was dangerous due to the fact that there were a number of obstacles—primarily, the Roman Catholic Church. The Protestant Reformation was occurring at the same time and Tyndale could not find a way to translate the Scriptures in England, so he ended up leaving to Germany. In 1526, the first copies of the New Testament were smuggled into England. “By 1530 he had translated and published the Pentateuch” (Lightfoot, 178). Sadly, Tyndale was martyred for his beliefs in 1536. Regardless, his influence prompted associates to further the work with translations such as the Great Bible and the Geneva Bible. As such, the impact of Tyndale in the innovation of the English Bible is still felt to this day.
The next stage of progression did not occur until 1604 at the Hampton Court Conference where King James made the decision to endorse the production of a new translation of the Bible (Lightfoot, 182). The main reason for this decision was to make a version of the Scriptures that would be for both private and public use. Hebrew and Greek scholars labored over this task until the KJV was finally printed in 1611. In its infancy, imperfections in the 1611 KJV led to subsequent editions. As early as 1613, revised editions were being developed. Since then, numerous editions over the centuries have been printed. If the common reader were to read the current edition and compare the 1611 original, there would be a shocking contrast. A question needs to be asked then, why was there ever a need to make any changes in the KJV text if it is the highest achievable and unrivaled standard among English translations?
Typographical errors in publishing were not the only problem. At the time of the printing of the KJV, the most important and technically precise manuscripts were not yet discovered (i.e. Vatican, Sinaitic, and the Alexandrian Manuscripts). Not only these manuscripts, but additional papyri and other early documents were yet to be discovered. Additionally, the language of the initial version used archaic words such as: “howbeit,” “thou”, and “thine”. This sort of obsolescence is also magnified today by the fact that various words had different meanings back then as opposed to the current English vernacular. Examples such as: “suffer” for “allow”, “allow” for “approve”, and “conversation” for “conduct”, just to name a few. Also, much of the current English grammar is not in line with what was written in the KJV. Philippians 4:13 in the KJV reads, “I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.” The word “which” was used in place of “who”. Another word, “his” took the place of “its”. Furthermore, the KJV contained significant interpretational errors in its translation. One example was in its distinguishing “Hades” from “hell”. The KJV translates Revelation 20:14 with the word “hell”, but the correct reading should be “Hades” will be thrown into “the lake of fire” along with “death” (Lightfoot, 186-188). Well, that is surely enough to prove that the KJV is not the only true biblical text. Case closed, right? Not quite. Time to dig a little deeper.
It is imperative that one understands the viewpoint of an individual that holds the KJV as the only true Bible. There are four main tenets to this dogmatic assertion: 1) Preference of the text itself; 2) The KJV is viewed as the superior text; 3) The Textus Receptus, or “Received Text” is viewed as divinely inspired; and 4) The KJV translators are viewed themselves as divinely inspired, which makes it alone the Word of God. Individuals can have a particular predilection towards a translation, and a biblical scholar would not, nor should anyone indicate, that the KJV does not hold great value. Out of the four tenets, this one actually should not call for concern. But when someone claims that the KJV is the superior text that should raise red flags, as shown in the aforementioned. The third view deals with the matter of a specific New Testament Greek text compiled by a Catholic humanist named Erasmus. This man used five or six Greek texts, along with the Latin Vulgate, to produce his text. An important note about the dating of the Greek texts Erasmus used is that none were dated prior to the twelfth century. Since that time a wealth of manuscripts have been discovered that are more reliable. The final viewpoint, which is the most extreme, puts the translators in the similar authoritative position of the original writers of Scripture.(1) God’s word was already penned centuries prior to the KJV, and most importantly the KJV translators themselves did not think they were inspired.
No doubt the greatest defense, other than Scripture, to prove that the KJV translators were uninspired comes from “The Translators to the Reader: Preface to the King James Version 1611”. Below is a mere sample from it:
"Neither did we think much to consult the Translators or Commentators, Chaldee, Hebrew, Syrian, Greek, or Latin, no nor the Spanish, French, Italian, or Dutch; neither did we disdain to revise that which we had done, and to bring back to the anvil that which we had hammered; but having and using as great helps as were needful, and fearing no reproach for slowness, nor coveting praise for expedition, we have at length, through the good hand of the Lord upon us, brought the work to that pass that you see."
"Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, lest the authority of the Scriptures for deciding controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. ... Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, ... and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by conference, and never scorn those that be not in all respects so complete as they should be, being to seek in many things ourselves, it hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness, ... that fearfulness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, .... There be many words in the Scriptures, which be never found there but once, ... so that we cannot be helped by conference of places. Again, there be many rare names of certain birds, beasts and precious stones, etc. ... Now in such a case, doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? ... Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is not so clear, must need do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded."(2)
The translators knew that they were not inspired, in the manner that the Apostles were, and saw that there was a necessity for other translations. It is unfortunate that the preface of the KJV 1611 edition is not found in the current version. Let’s look deeper now at some additional arguments that KJV-only advocates make.
Some KJV-only advocates allege that there were no marginal notes in the 1611 original text. This is patently false and easily dismissed because all anyone needs to do is a quick search and see that the text did in fact have marginal notes. The resource that is cited for this article, (The Interactive Bible website or www.bible.ca), provides a number of examples and can be quickly accessed. This further demonstrates that the translators were not inspired because there would be no need for an alternate rendering if God had directed these scholars. Additionally, the KJV proponents indicate that these marginal notes were not placed by the original translators, but by the publishers. This allegation falls flat once anyone reads the preface, and besides, it would be nonsensical leaving such a significant action to those not involved in the translating process.(2)
Further discrepancies to consider are numerous words and phrases that are not translated accurately. These actually occur between the Textus Receptus and the KJV. The phrase “Tithes of all I possess” in Lk. 18:12 of the KJV is written completely different in the TR, which says “Tithes of all I acquire”. In Acts 19:37, the KJV uses the phrase “robbers of churches,” but Greek manuscripts uses the word “Hierosulous,” which means “robbers of temples”. The word “Easter” appears in Acts 12:4 in the KJV, but in reality, it should be “Passover”. These are just a few of the many differences.(2)
There are some final points to consider and questions that would prove beneficial if anyone were to engage in a conversation with someone who held the KJV-only viewpoint. It should be obvious to all that read the Scripture that the KJV was not around in Bible times, nor was it created by the apostles. Even when the KJV was published, it was followed by numerous revisions, and one needs to ask if it was inspired then, which edition bears the true inspiration of God? After one takes time to study and sees that there are differences between the English King James Version and the Greek Textus Receptus, how does one determine which one is right? This might be one of the most difficult things to ask a KJV-only believer: how can anyone claim that this translation is without error when there are so many mistakes?(2) Modern translations of the Bible have not been penned perfectly and no one should deny this fact. Also, as archaeological finds continue to appear, and vernacular changes take place, newer editions of the Scriptures will be necessary.
The case against KJV-onlyism is massive. So much is written and there is no way to touch upon all aspects of the flaws in this viewpoint. Hopefully, this article was thought-provoking to the point that the reader will dig deeper into the study of Scripture and other held viewpoints that Christians need to beware of and stand against. No one should ever belittle the KJV as being a poor translation; yet it is significant to bear in mind that there were not the thousands more manuscripts which are now available. This makes the case for new editions and greater understanding among God’s people. One would hope to see that this provides additional evidence for the existence of God, and gives further ammunition in a believer’s defense. Finally, the obedient follower of Christ needs to be always prepared to point out false teachings, and do it in such a way that the wayward sinner may come to the Lord (cf. 1 Timothy 2:4; 2 Timothy 2:24ff).
(1) http://lavistachurchofchrist.org/LVarticles/IsTheKJVTheOnlyTrueBibleVersion.html
(2) https://www.bible.ca/b-kjv-only.htm *(The entire KJV 1611 Preface can be read here as well)*
