tampasteve
Pray for peace in Israel
Christian Forums Staff
Administrator
Angels Team
CF Senior Ambassador
Site Supporter
- May 15, 2017
- 25,391
- 7,332
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Methodist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
^^^This 100%, well written. Thank you.I personally have been unable to find a single sound reason why any unbiased person would choose the 1769 KJV over the best translations produced in recent times. However, I do understand why those of a certain age (such as my 89-year-old uncle, a former elder in his church) prefer it over other translations in normal English.
And there are those who have been brought up in churches that exclusively use the KJV. Having the KJV imposed on them makes independent choice and unbiased analysis quite difficult. It’s frowned upon, to say the least.
The KJV certainly isn’t the most accurate translation out there. For example, it has been proved that in the Synoptic Gospels alone the New KJV is more accurate than the 1769 KJV. You can see the incontestable evidence for this here:
THE SUPERIOR ACCURACY OF THE NKJV TO THE KJV’S TEXTUS RECEPTUS: A Study of the Synoptic Gospels | Gary Hudson |
A similar approach would show that the NASB and ESV, etc. are generally superior too.
Those who tell the world that the KJV is the best translation out there cannot get past the most fundamental of problems: our God-breathed scriptures are not in English, and never were in English. Various illogical spins are put on the facts and even history to get around this, but the truth remains that God did not use any form of the English language to give us the scriptures.
So, if for example you are German and don’t understand English, to read God’s Word you will need a Bible that translates into German the languages God originally chose (Hebrew, Aramaic and a form of ancient Greek). This most fundamental of misunderstandings leads to incongruous argumentation that can get a bit embarrassing.
When Samuel Gipp, a very vocal defender of the supposed supremacy of the KJV, went on TV and was asked, “So if a guy is in Russia and he really wants to get to the truth of the Word of God, would he have to learn English?” he replied, “Yes.”
Many fervent KJV supporters will try to tell you that it’s better to read 2nd Corinthians 6:11-13 in the KJV than in any of the “modern” translations. Really? “O ye Corinthians, our mouth is open unto you, our heart is enlarged. Ye are not straitened in us, but ye are straitened in your own bowels. Now for a recompence in the same, (I speak as unto my children,) be ye also enlarged.”
I’ve personally tried to cut the KJV a lot of slack, but I kept coming back to the same unavoidable conclusion: for the modern unbiased believer the KJV throws a veil over the clarity of the Scriptures. Not everywhere to the same degree, but in general. Key points of my conclusions are routinely disputed, but not at all convincingly:
Recently someone who wrote to me praised the "majesty" of the KJV text, suggesting perhaps that in some way its style offers an advantage over the "modern" versions. Maybe this view is to be expected among those who have fondly used the AV for decades or are under the leadership of those who will not teach from any other translation. But the believer's goal should always be accuracy and comprehensibility, not a personal fondness for a majestic form of English that's hundreds of years out of date. Surely it goes without saying that anything that makes Scripture harder to understand—that even slightly impairs clarity—cannot possibly be a good thing.
It can be demonstrated that the KJV's archaic language does make it harder to understand Scripture, even in the 1769 revision that everyone uses today. (This edition differs from the original 1611 version in over 75,000 details, often due to printing errors.) Awkward out-of-date phrases are undeniably unhelpful. For example: "purchase to themselves a good degree", "superfluity of naughtiness", "fruits meet for repentance", "the lively oracles", "devour widows' houses", "altogether on a smoke", "we do you to wit of the grace of God", "thou shalt destroy them that speak leasing", "they are lively, and are delivered ere the midwives come in unto them", "in earing time and in harvest thou shalt rest", "clouted upon their feet", "the scall".
Those who regularly read the KJV will come across a large number of words that are no longer commonly used today, such as "cockatrice", "hoised", "cotes", "stomacher", "blains", "fanners", "scrabbled", "strawed", "froward", "sackbut", "wimples", "habergeon", "crookbackt", "cieled", "glistering", "suretiship", and so on.
No one can deny that the defunct language and style of the KJV clearly interfere with the clarity and readability of the text. We must wonder how that can ever be acceptable. It certainly isn't helpful. No heartfelt appeal to the alleged importance of grand and majestic language will entirely justify a dead mode of expression. But much worse than outdated language is a lack of accuracy in many places. Let's briefly examine some of these.
Historic errors that were made during textual transmission were unwittingly included in the original KJV translation and first printing, and remain to this day. In the Book of Revelation you will find examples of errors that have no support in any ancient Greek manuscript. "It remains a fact that a dozen or so readings in the KJV find no support in any Greek manuscript whatsoever. In the last few verses of Revelation, a half dozen such inventions occur. These can be traced directly to the fact that Erasmus had to prepare a Greek manuscript for these verses by translating back from the Vulgate" (D. A. Carson, The King James Version Debate).
In Revelation 16:5 the words "shalt be" are not supported by any Greek manuscript. In Acts 9:6 the words "and he trembling and astonished said, Lord, what wilt thou have me to do? and the Lord said unto him" do not exist in any manuscript. The passage at 1st John 5:7, 8 is found in only four late manuscripts, the earliest from the fourteenth century. (It's important to remember that Bible verses were set in place before the 1611 version was translated and are still in use today. In the muddled thinking of some this makes it appear that some words and verses have been "left out" or “deleted” in "modern" versions. But this is not the case.) In Matthew 23:24 the early printing error "strain at a gnat", which should read, "strain out a gnat", remains uncorrected in all KJV Bibles today.
While reading through the KJV you will come across renderings that can obscure the meaning or sense of the original language: "found mules" for the correct "found water", "God" for "judge", "fish" for "soul", "thou hast destroyed thyself" in place of the correct "he destroyed you", "the master and the scholar" in place of "aware and awake", "Abstain from all appearance of evil" rather than the more accurate "Abstain from every form of evil" (NKJV), "changed" rather than the more accurate "exchanged" (Romans 1:25), "to feed" for the more accurate "to shepherd", "such as should be saved" for "those who were being saved", "which is corrupt" for "which is being corrupted", "world" rather than "age", "Do violence to no man" for "Do not intimidate anyone", "a lover of good men" rather than the more accurate "a lover of what is good", "the great God and our Saviour Jesus Christ" rather than the accurate "our great God and Savour, Christ Jesus", "For in many things we offend all" for "For we all stumble in many ways", "for the errors of the people" rather than "for the sins of the people committed in ignorance", "every one that is joined unto them" for "anyone who is captured", "Thou shalt not kill" for "Do not murder", "Have ye received the Holy Ghost since ye believed?" for "Did you receive the Holy Spirit when you believed?", "churches" for "temples", "itself" rather than "Himself" in reference to the Holy Spirit in Romans 8:26.
Although it's possible to find questionable readings in all reputable formal translations—none claims to be perfect—I'm bound to ask, Does the 1611 King James Version have more than we should allow? When a believer opens a Bible it's his or her heart's desire to understand as clearly and directly as possible what God has said. In this context then, I'd take the view that it makes sense not to choose the KJV as a benchmark translation. This is especially true of those who are young or have recently accepted Christ as Saviour.
Upvote
0
