King James Onlyism - Biblical or Cultic?

[Berean]

The King James Only Error



In my opinion, the King James Bible is the most accurate, beautiful and most eloquent of all the translations when it includes the proper updates from the Old English, but nevertheless we must remember that it is a translation of the Bible that can ultimately be traced back to the original manuscript languages of Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek. Therefore the King James Bible is not God's exclusive "Preserved Word" as some people believe. If it was, then that would mean that there was no valid Bible on earth prior to 1611 when the first edition of the KJV was published. And of course such an idea is ridiculous.



Ironically, the 1611 version is an even older English version and it is almost impossible to understand. I own one. It's brutal. You pretty much can't read it. The Old English is so heavy it's almost like an entirely different language at times. Yet somehow it got updated in 1769 without a hick-up? How so? If the original 1611 version is claimed to be God's exclusive “Preserved Word” as-is, then how can the later updated and much easier to read 1769 version also be God's only “Preserved Word” ? The answer is simple, it can't be.



Additionally, if the KJV is the only valid translation, then that would also mean that any Bible translated into Chinese or Japanese for example would be invalid. Such a notion is also nonsensical. ​Does God only care about English speaking people? Of course not. Yet many groups refuse to defer to such common sense and so are adamantly "King-James-Only". These people will often divide from and sometimes even slander those of us who do not agree with their error.



There is also a lot of misinformation on this subject floating around on the Internet where it is claimed there there are only minor changes between the 1611 and 1769 versions. This is absolutely not true. There are enormous differences between these two editions, including a number of verses with basically different meanings. And second of all, if the 1611 edition is God's exclusive “Preserved Word”, then not a single thing should have been changed and the more modern 1769 edition should not even exist. Of course the 1769 edition is valid. It is a sound translation, especially for its time, but there is nothing wrong with another update to our even more modern English today. Additionally, it has been reported that there are some differences between the Oxford and Cambridge editions of the 1769 version. I have not reviewed these differences myself, but I have no reason to doubt this.



Compared to the 1611 edition, the 1769 King James was much easier to understand for the people of that time period. From the perspective of the people who lived back then, to them 1769 was “modern times” compared to 1611. They obviously benefited greatly from the update from the hard-to-understand 1611 version.



But regardless, do you see the hypocrisy here? It was perfectly fine for the much needed 1769 edition to be published as an update of the hard-to-understand 1611 version. But here we are in 2017 and we are somehow not allowed to have another update, this time to our more modern English? These King-James-Onlyists are impossible to deal with and this battle has become quite a serious problem for the Christian Church overall.



FYI: the reason I don't read or use the New King James Version is simply because I don't like it. It's not just an update from the Old English with the substitution of modern English equivalents for words that appear untranslated, it goes way beyond that and so it lacks the wonderful flow and pace of the 1769 King James. The translators simply went too far to still be able to call it a King James. They should have called it something else.


link

[Berean]

KJV-Onlyism

Biblical or Cultic?



There are many today, often very sincere and well-meaning, who are seeking to promote a “double inspiration theory.” They teach that not only were the original manuscripts inspired by God, but also that the King James Bible translation has been miraculously preserved and translated with the result that it is absolutely perfect and flawless.



This view is stated clearly by one of its defenders: “We believe that the same God who gave the original Scriptures has the power and authority to PRESERVE them through the years of time and give them to us in our language—infallible and without possibility of error. … We believe that Almighty God through the power of the Holy Spirit has INSPIRED and PRESERVED (emphasis his) one and only one translation and version in the English language as the infallible and inerrant Holy Scriptures. That version is the King James Authorized Version of 1611” (written by Mark A. Underwood, president and founder of THE KING JAMES BIBLE MINISTRY, a ministry which was founded “for the purpose of promoting and defending the KJV of 1611 as the infallible and inspired Holy Scriptures”; the above quotations are from Underwood’s brochure in which he tells about his ministry and presents his statement of faith).



I, also, am “King James Only” in the sense that I use only the King James Bible in my reading and study of the Word. I love and honor and respect this translation of the Bible, and recognize that it has been greatly used of God since its first edition in 1611. I also recognize that there are serious problems involving the multitude of modern translations that are on the market today and that these problems must be faced and dealt with. But it is my position, and the historic position of Bible believers, that it is only the original manuscripts (autographs) which have been given by inspiration of God and that no translation, not even the revered KJV, is absolutely flawless and perfect. A translation is accurate only to the extent that it faithfully gives an accurate rendering of the original text. I am thankful that in general the KJV does this and does it very well. (Adapted from a 5/9/98 pastor’s e-mail.)



One can certainly appreciate the point that many modern translations are suspect because of the heterodoxy of the translators. Still, insisting on retreat to a less than perfect translation of 1611, as all translations must be (and in fact usually using a 1769 tenth edition of that translation, which alleviates some of the earlier nine editions’ imperfections), is still retreat, not an advance for the Kingdom of God. We can continue to appreciate and use “the KJV (tenth edition)” without making it into an idol that is as detestable to God as any other idol.



Background Information



The Old Testament (OT) was almost all originally written in Hebrew with a few portions in Aramaic. The New Testament (NT) was written in Greek. The OT: Before the Dead Sea Scrolls were found (1947-1956), the earliest hand copied manuscript of the Hebrew OT was dated about A.D. 900. The Dead Sea Scrolls provided manuscripts that were copied from 100 B.C. - A.D. 200. These manuscripts were about 1,000 years older than any previously known copies of Hebrew OT texts. The remarkable thing was that a comparison proved the amazing similarity of the texts. The only variation involved what scholars termed “incidental matters.” Today, there is little debate over the OT text.



The NT: There are three major sources to examine to try and determine the actual text of the original writings of the Greek New Testament. They are the Greek Manuscripts (about 5,300), the versions which are earlier translations (about 8,000) and Bible quotations in the writings of the early church fathers.



Greek manuscripts have two primary text-type families. The debate over the preferred (or non-corrupted, if you are KJV-Only) text centers around the Byzantine and the Alexandrian text-types. The Byzantine text-type was the Greek text used during the Byzantine period (A.D. 312-1453). The King James translation was based on a few (about 6) of these manuscripts. Those few manuscripts became the basis for what became known as the TEXTUS RECEPTUS or THE RECEIVED TEXT as presented in the KJV. The manuscripts that the KJV were based on were late, with none earlier than the 10th century (cf. THE KING JAMES VERSION DEBATE by D.A. Carson, pp. 35-36). The earliest Byzantine texts are from the 4th century. The Alexandrian text-type has fewer manuscripts but they are older. They were discovered after the translation of the KJV. Modern translations are based primarily on these older manuscripts.



Facts of the Matter



1. Of over 5,000 copies of the NT available (of which no two are identical), only 50 are complete NTs, of which the Textus Receptus is only one.



2. The Textus Receptus (TR) is NOT the NT the KJV translators used (for the 1611 KJV translation)—they used the Stephens of 1550. The TR did not even exist until after 1624. The TR was a combination of the Stephens and Beza texts. There are 200-300 variations between the Stephens text used by the KJV translators and the TR.



3. Other translations were used by the KJV translators is producing the 1611 edition—2.9% of the KJV is word-for-word from the 1525 Tyndale Bible. Overall, 61% of the KJV was taken from other available translations, including the Geneva Bible (see preface to the 1611 KJV).



4. The KJV used today is NOT the 1611 version, but the 10th edition! (which occurred about 150 years after 1611). Moreover, the KJV of 1611 included the Roman Catholic Apocrypha (also called “Deuterocanonical books”)! How could these “God-guided” translators (as KJV-Onlyites like to refer to them) have made such a grievous error? [The Apocrypha began to be omitted in approximately 1769, and the most common printings of the modern day rarely include them (except that all Roman Catholic Bibles still do). However the British coronation service requires, or required, an “unmutilated” edition.]



5. Modern translations of the Bible as a standard practice include textual notes to indicate to the reader where the Greek or Hebrew manuscripts contain variants. KJV-Only advocates, generally, dislike such footnotes, feeling that they can “confuse” the reader, and that they are, in fact, faith-destroying. However, the KJV contained 8,422 such marginal readings and notes when it was first published.



6. The translators of the 1611 edition, in the preface, stated the need for constant revision to update the language. Yet KJV-Onlyism people criticize the modern translations for doing this very thing. If the KJV is the “authorized” Bible, then KJV-Onlyites should have a real problem with what the translators themselves said.



7. A KJV-Only advocate, Texe Marrs, wrote the following letter on July 28, 1994, in response to receiving twenty-eight pages of documentation demonstrating the errors and misrepresentations in Gail Riplinger’s book, New Age Bible Versions: “Don’t write me again unless in sincere repentance. You are a devil, plain & simple. I understand well why Mrs. Riplinger does not respond to your ridiculous assertions. Why dignify the lying claims of a servant of Satan!” Is this the kind of “godliness” and “humility” we can expect from KJV-Only defenders?



8. It’s unfortunate that King James name is even on the KJV—he was an unsavory character.



Questions for KJV-Onlyism Advocates



To those who believe that the King James translation has been flawlessly preserved and miraculously inspired, we would ask the following questions (for more questions):



1. Which revision of the KJV is inspired and/or preserved, since it was revised ten times, the last being in 1850?



2. What Bible did God have for the English-speaking world prior to 1611? Was it also a perfect translation? If God was under obligation to make the King James Version perfect, then why would He leave English-speaking people for 1600 years without a translation they could rely on?



3. Where in the Bible does God guarantee that any translator of the Bible, anyone who copies the Bible, anyone who preached the Bible, or anyone who teaches the Bible, will be infallibly correct? [There is no such Scripture. The doctrine of infallibility of the translation in the King James is not a Bible doctrine; it is a manmade scheme by some partly ignorant and some partly influenced by bad motives.]



4. The KJV translators translated the Apocrypha and included these books in the original 1611 edition. If the KJV translation was inspired, does this mean that the Apocrypha is inspired by God also? And if so, why was the Apocrypha removed from later editions?



5. If God gave the English-speaking world an inspired translation, did He also give an inspired translation in the other languages (French, Spanish, Italian, Russian, etc.)? If so, where is it? If not, why not? [If God has obligated Himself, as some fanatics say, to make one translation in English, that is, the King James Version, perfectly translated without error, then would not God be obligated to furnish such a translation in every other language also? What are those translations?]



6. Why did the KJV translators use marginal notes showing alternate translation possibilities and showing variant manuscript readings?



7. If the KJV translators were inspired of God in their work, why did they not know this and why did they not mention this in their introduction, “The Translators to the Reader”? Instead, why did they humbly acknowledge their own shortcomings and imperfections as Bible translators? If the KJV was perfect, why did the translators expect that others would one day make their 1611 Bible into an even better one?



8. When there is a difference between the Textus Receptus (the “Received Text”) and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Textus Receptus?



9. When there is a difference between the Majority Text and the KJV translation, why do you favor the KJV and reject the Majority Text?



10. Did our Pilgrim fathers have the wrong Bible with them when they brought the Geneva Bible with them to North America?



11. If the KJV differs or varies from the original Greek text, should we correct the English by making it agree with the Greek or should we correct the Greek by making it agree with the English?



12. When was the KJV “given by inspiration by God”? In 1611 or in one of the years when major/minor revisions took place?—in 1613, 1629, 1638, 1644, 1664, 1701, 1744, 1762, 1769, or 1850?



13. Was the original Greek lost after 1611? If not, where are we to find it? It cannot be the Textus Receptus, because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Textus Receptus. It cannot be the Majority Text because there are many places where the KJV differs from the Majority Text.



14. Where does the Bible teach that God will perfectly preserve His Word in the form of one and only one seventeenth-century English translation?



15. Should we condemn Tyndale’s translation (1525), Coverdale’s translation (1535), the Great Bible (1539), or the Geneva Bible (1560—the Bible of the Pilgrims), because these English Bibles varied slightly from the KJV? And if so, why did the “inspired” translators use these translations in their own readings?



16. If the KJV can “correct” the inspired originals, does this mean that the Hebrew and Greek originally “breathed out by God” was in need of correction and improvement? How can the inspired, infallible originals need correcting or improving?



17. Why did the Lord Jesus and the Apostles make use of and quote from the Septuagint translation (ancient Greek translation of the OT), even though the Septuagint differed from the original Hebrew in places and was certainly not a perfect translation?



18. Since no two manuscripts of the Greek New Testament have been found to be exactly alike, which manuscript is it that has been perfectly preserved and perfectly reflects the original?



19. F.H.A. Scrivener published a Greek New Testament that was made to reflect what the KJV says. The 1976 Trinitarian Bible Society Greek New Testament followed the text of Scrivener and claimed to be the Greek text behind the KJV. Why is it that the KJV differs from these two Greek editions in certain places? [For example, in Acts 19:20, where the Greek editions have “Lord” but the KJV has “God.”]



20. King James Only advocates frequently refer to the “Textus Receptus” (TR, Text Received) and the work of the Roman Catholic monk Erasmus (ca. 1466-1536) as the only correct Greek text of the New Testament. Were the compilers of the Textus Receptus (Erasmus, Stephanus, etc.) inspired by God in their work and miraculously kept from error? But Erasmus revised the Greek text four times (and the KJV translators did not use his last edition). Which is the correct, inspired text?



21. For 150 years Wycliffe’s translation was the only complete English translation in use. He completed his translation about 1382. It was not translated from the original languages but from the Latin Vulgate. Wycliffe’s translation varied from the KJV in many places. Should Wycliffe’s Bible be condemned or did it serve a good purpose? Was it helpful or hurtful?



22. Luther translated the Greek New Testament into the German language. Was his translation a perfect translation? Was it blessed of God and useful to the German people? Was it of the devil or of God?



23. Was Tyndale’s Bible a good translation? Was Tyndale guided by God any less than the KJV translators? It has been estimated that one-third of the King James Version is worded as Tyndale had it, and that even in the remaining two-thirds, the general literary structure set by Tyndale has been retained. Some scholars have said that ninety per cent of Tyndale is reproduced in the King James Version of the New Testament. Thus, the KJV translators were greatly indebted to Tyndale and yet they recognized that even his work was in need of revision and correcting. Did they not also recognize that their work might also be improved upon?



24. The Geneva Bible was the translation used by Shakespeare, John Bunyan, the Puritans in England, and Oliver Cromwell, as well as the Pilgrim fathers. It was the Bible that was brought to America on the Mayflower. Even the address from “The Translators to the Reader,” which is prefaced to the Authorized Version of 1611, took its quotations of the Scripture from the Geneva Bible. Was this Bible a corrupted Bible? Was it used of God? Was it hurtful or helpful to the cause of Christ? Did it make people wise unto salvation? Was it used effectively in building up God’s people in the most holy faith?



25. If God guided the KJV translators to translate a perfect Bible, did He also guide them to translate an imperfect and uninspired Apocrypha? Were the Old and New Testaments translated in the Spirit and the Apocrypha translated in the flesh?



26. Why were italics employed by the KJV translators in 1 John 2:23? [The italics were not employed, as usual, to mark a supplement, but to show that the words were regarded as suspicious. Stephanus excluded the clause but had a reference to it in the margin; Beza admits it without hesitation]. Do the italics indicate that the KJV translators were uncertain as to whether or not this clause was part of the original text?



27. Why were there 35 textual notes given in the margin of the King James Bible? [Examples: Matthew 26:26—“Many Greek copies have…” Luke 10:22—“Many ancient copies add these words…” Luke 17:36—“This verse is wanting in most of the Greek copies” Acts 25:6—“Or as some copies read, no more than eight or ten days.”



28. Was the KJV correct in following the Latin Vulgate in Revelation 22:19 (“book of life”), even though most Greek manuscripts have “tree of life”? Should the Latin be preferred over the Greek?



29. The Greek text underlying the King James Version agrees in 81 places with Beza’s Greek edition against Stephen’s Greek edition, and it agrees in about 21 places with Stephen’s Greek edition against Beza’s Greek edition, and in 29 places they agree with neither. In light of this, which Greek edition can we say has been divinely and perfectly preserved?



30. Blayney’s edition of the KJV (1769) became the standard form of the version and is unto this day, but his edition differs from the 1611 edition in about 75,000 minor details. Which edition of the KJV (Blayney’s or the original) is the perfect, flawless Bible? If the original 1611 Bible that the KJV translators produced was perfect, does this mean that our present KJV edition (based on Blayney’s edition) is flawed in about 75,000 details?



In Their Own Words



As cited earlier in this report, the King James translators did NOT think they were inspired by the Holy Spirit to produce an infallible translation which was to be the only English Bible that God would ever use to preserve His Word.



In fact, in the preface to the 1611 version (the Preface and the Apocrypha which they translated have both been omitted from most copies of the KJV today), they clearly disclaim that their translation was the only Word of God. There were already several English translations in existence and being used in England, America, and other countries. Some of these were Wycliffe (1380), Tyndale (1525-30), Coverdale (1535), Matthew’s Bible (1537), Great Bible (1540), Geneva Bible (1560), and Bishop’s Bible (1568).



In the preface titled, “The Translators to The Reader,” was written:



“... We do not deny, nay we affirm and avow, that the very meanest [most common, lowest quality] translation of the Bible in English … containeth the Word of God, nay, is the Word of God. … We are so far off from condemning any of their labors that prevailed before us [previous translators of previous versions] in this kind, either in this land or beyond sea … that we acknowledge them to have been raised up of God, for the building and furnishing of his Church, and that they deserve to be had of us and of posterity in everlasting remembrance. … Truly (good Christian reader) we never thought from the beginning that we should need to make a new translation, nor yet to make of a bad one a good one … but to make a good one better, or out of many good ones, one principle good one …”



The 1611 original had numerous margin notes that offer different possible translations of words and phrases. The translators wrote in the preface:



“Some peradventure would have no variety of senses to be set in the margin, less the authority of the Scriptures for deciding of controversies by that show of uncertainty, should somewhat be shaken. But we hold their judgment not to be so sound in this point. … It hath pleased God in his divine providence, here and there to scatter words and sentences of that difficulty and doubtfulness. … 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 needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded. …We have not tied ourselves to a uniformity of phrasing, or to an identity of words, as some peradventure would wish that we had done. …Why should we be in bondage to them [words or syllables] if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commodiously? …We have … avoided the scrupulosity of the Puritans.”



Conclusion



KJV-Onlyism runs the gambit from moderately reasonable advocates (David Cloud, E.L. Bynum, John R. Rice), to the wacked-out, stone throwers (D.A. Waite, Jack Hyles, Samuel Gipp, Walter Bebe, Texe Marrs, Peter Ruckman, Gail Riplinger, etc.). A couple of years ago, Gary Hudson launched a website devoted to exposing the errors of “King James Onlyism”—“The King James Only Resource Center.” Gary has a number of articles and reports posted. This site has become a “one stop” resource center for all questions related to “King James Onlyism.”



link

[Berean]

The King James Controversy

What the Translators of the King James Version have to say...





On this page is a logical argument, right from the KJV preface as to why KJVonlyism is wrong. On another page on this site (click here), I have a list of errors in the KJV. As I do sermons and find errors in it, I compile them. This is why most of the errors are lumped into just a few books of the Bible. Were we to list them all, it would surely be in the hundreds. The KJV is a translation by man; fallible man. Please don't be duped into this ridiculous cult of KJVonlyism.







Excerpts from



The Translators to the Reader



of the 1611 King James Version







For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.



Hebrews 4:12







It seems like everyday a new translation of the Holy Bible comes out. There’s a lot of bitterness, backbiting, and even hatred of those who’ve made such translations and a great deal of accusing concerning these versions. Who is right? Is one translation of Scripture authoritative, and all others of the devil? Who is in the better position to decide, those of such a mindset, or those who have actually endeavored to provide the translation? I say with certainty that we should not reject the words of the translators, particularly the translators of the very document in which most of the controversy has arisen – the King James Version. My opinion is to agree wholeheartedly with the translators of the King James Version. Below is their stand, directly from their own memorandum to the reader. This memo has been greatly shortened since its original submission and these words, although not lost entirely, are no longer normally published. However, they are Public Domain and can be read in their entirety by doing a general search on the internet.







Having read the entire memo, I’ve taken certain pertinent paragraphs concerning the issue and provided you with a short commentary for clarity as the English used is obviously old and difficult.







The translation of the Seventy dissenteth from the Original in many places, neither doth it come near it, for perspicuity, gravity, majesty; yet which of the Apostles did condemn it? Condemn it? Nay, they used it, (as it is apparent, and as Saint Jerome and most learned men do confess) which they would not have done, nor by their example of using it, so grace and commend it to the Church, if it had been unworthy of the appellation and name of the word of God.







Some one-version-only advocates deny the Septuagint (the translation of the Seventy) even exists. They claim it was a later invention of the Catholic Church. And yet, the translators of the King James Version not only acknowledge it exists, but that it existed in the very hands of the Apostles, and that further, it is worthy of the appellation and name of the word of God! There is a doctrine known as dual-inspiration which claims varying documents are equally inspired, even if they don’t match on all points. I don’t agree with this myself. Rather, I believe in the inspiration of the original documents as they were received and penned. Variations since then do not negate the inspiration of those originals. It appears the translators understood these difficulties and agree that the Word has been preserved enough in the Septuagint to be considered the Word of God even if it is at variance with the Masoretic Text.







Nay, we will yet come nearer the quick: doth not their Paris edition differ from the Lovaine, and Hentenius his from them both, and yet all of them allowed by authority? Nay, doth not Sixtus Quintus confess, that certain Catholics (he meaneth certain of his own side) were in such an humor of translating the Scriptures into Latin, that Satan taking occasion by them, though they thought of no such matter, did strive what he could, out of so uncertain and manifold a variety of Translations, so to mingle all things, that nothing might seem to be left certain and firm in them, etc.? [Sixtus 5. praefat. fixa Bibliis.] Nay, further, did not the same Sixtus ordain by an inviolable decree, and that with the counsel and consent of his Cardinals, that the Latin edition of the old and new Testament, which the Council of Trent would have to be authentic, is the same without controversy which he then set forth, being diligently corrected and printed in the Printing-house of Vatican? Thus Sixtus in his Preface before his Bible. And yet Clement the Eighth his immediate successor, pub- lished another edition of the Bible, containing in it infinite differences from that of Sixtus, (and many of them weighty and material) and yet this must be authentic by all means.







The finger of the translators not only points back in time to those who accuse translators of various translations of being in bed with Satan, but they point forward to modern one-version-only clubs who make exactly the same claim. Further, they make it quite clear that the Lovaine and Hentenius (John Hentenius of Louvain, 1547 ed.,) as well as the Paris (1504 Vulgate, I believe) edition are all authoritative. Additionally, the Bible published by Sixtus (Pope Sixtus V, 1590 ed.) and that also by Clement (Clement VIII 1592, 93, 98 eds.) are also of equal authority – and that the Clement had “infinite differences” from the translation of Sixtus and that of the Latin. In my opinion, to say varying translations are of the devil is to say God has allowed the enemy control of His holy Word.







Yet for all that it cannot be dissembled, that partly to exercise and whet our wits, partly to wean the curious from the loathing of them for their every-where plainness, partly also to stir up our devotion to crave the assistance of God's spirit by prayer, and lastly, that we might be forward to seek aid of our brethren by con- ference, 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, not in doctrinal points that concern salvation, (for in such it hath been vouched that the Scriptures are plain) but in matters of less moment, that fearful-ness would better beseem us than confidence, and if we will resolve upon modesty with S. Augustine, (though not in this same case alto- gether, yet upon the same ground) Melius est debitare de occultis, quam litigare de incertis, [S. Aug li. S. de Genes. ad liter. cap. 5.] "it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain."







The translators of the King James Version believed that God had scattered words and sentences of difficulty and doubtfulness (meaning they are not sure of the exact translation, even in their own version) here and there and that, because these are in no way related to doctrinal points concerning salvation, it wasn’t of the highest moment. The quote of Saint Augustine makes their point sure. “it is better to make doubt of those things which are secret, than to strive about those things that are uncertain.” And again…







Therefore as S. Augustine saith, that variety of Translations is profitable for the finding out of the sense of the Scriptures: [S. Aug. 2. de doctr. Christian. cap. 14.] so diversity of signification and sense in the margin, where the text is no so clear, must needs do good, yea, is necessary, as we are persuaded.







The King James Version Translation committee agrees that a variety of Translations is profitable for finding out the sense of the Scriptures. And not only that, but marginal notes for those “no so clear” areas are not only a little ok, but they are “must needs do good” and are …. necessary! If you’re in a “one version only” club, you probably don’t like to read these words, but they are part of the history of Biblical progression.







They that are wise, had rather have their judgments at liberty in differences of readings, than to be captivated to one, when it may be the other.







According to the translators, the wise should use varied translations. The converse then may show a lack of scholarship by those captivated by one translation. This is not a personal jab at single-version readers, but is a logical analysis based on the translators own reflections.







For is the kingdom of God to become words or syllables? why should we be in bondage to them if we may be free, use one precisely when we may use another no less fit, as commo-diously?







The translators call sticking to single words that may have alternative meanings bondage. Alternative meanings necessarily come from the exegesis of different translating committees. It is no sin for man to search for the truth concerning proper translation. Additionally, just as there are countless denominations, many of which are considered “main-stream” despite their differences, so will there be variations in translation by fully competent, Christ-centered committees of translators.







Add hereunto, that niceness in words was always counted the next step to trifling, and so was to be curious about names too: also that we cannot follow a better pattern for elocution than God himself; therefore he using divers words, in his holy writ, and indifferently for one thing in nature: [see Euseb. li. 12. ex Platon.] we, if we will not be super-stitious, may use the same liberty in our English versions out of Hebrew and Greek, for that copy or store that he hath given us.







The translators say God uses divers words in His holy Writ to make a point and that we should feel free to do the same via multiple translations in the English (or any) language.







Lastly, even though this is not addressed by the translation committee, I’d like to comment on the verse spoken by our Lord in Matthew 5:18:





For assuredly, I say to you, till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle will by no means pass from the law till all is fulfilled.



The English term “jot or tittle” comes from the Hebrew “kotzo shel yud.” Kotzo signifies the slightest brush stroke of a letter in the Hebrew aleph-bet. Yud (pronounced yood) is the 10th and smallest of the 22 letters in the aleph-bet. As a kotzo is not a translatable part of the language, it is impossible to say that an English version carries the entire weight and significance of the original. It is the original documents, received under inspiration of the Holy Spirit, which carry all the intent and meaning intended.







-----------------------------------







Please use common sense when getting caught up in religious hype. Whether it’s faith healing by “throwing” the Holy Spirit around like a football, speaking in nonsensical tongues, or simply being led astray by personal beliefs concerning the authority of Scripture, we need to walk a narrow path of common sense and not get bogged down in issues which distract our attention from Jesus.







Attempt to hold to sound doctrine and investigate what you’re taught – to the honor and glory of the Wonderful One, Jesus Christ.





link

[Berean]

Errors in the KJV



This is a list of translation errors which are found in the King James Version (KJV), a mediocre translation of Scripture. I started compiling them after having completed my studies of Genesis, so the many errors in their translation of Genesis are lacking for the most part. As for this list, these errors are based on the same source texts used by the KJV translators, so we are dealing apples with apples in this list.


Full list at link

[Berean]

What Are The Best Bible Translations?

by JACK WELLMAN · Print Print · Email Email





There are so many different Bible translations out there, so which one is best?



Variety

If you look at nature, you can see that God loves variety. Hardly any two species are the same, and even humans are like snowflakes in the sense that no two of us are alike, and that’s good, but what about the hundreds of Bible translations out there? Which are the best? What gives the reader the best grasp of the original manuscripts of the authors of the Bible? Is one better than another? Which ones should we steer clear of? The idea that some are “King James Only” believers troubles me a bit, because even the King James Bible has mistranslations and omissions from the original manuscripts, so the argument that the King James is the best and only translation we should use is false, and I hope to show you why. Don’t get me wrong. I love the King James Version, but no version is without error, but those errors are less than one half of one percent in most translations, and these errors do not affect biblical doctrine. For example, some translations have it read, “Jesus Christ” instead of “Christ Jesus,” and even though both are correct, no two translations are exactly the same and no translation is perfect, so these minor differences should not be a problem for us.







King James Version

I tend to preach out of the King James in most cases, however, there are exceptions. When I want to make it a bit easier to understand, I use the English Standard Version (ESV). This translation reads more smoothly in some cases and gives a better definition of the original Hebrew, Greek, or Aramaic than does the King James. In the New Testament, the King James often translates the word “dulous” into “servant,” when the original word means “slave,” so that is a significant difference, but it’s not a difference enough to affect the gospel of Jesus Christ. A servant can quit or get fired and goes home after work, but a slave is owned by their master and they live there, and work there, and sleep there, but they are also provided for. In many cases in the ancient Roman Empire, slaves became like a family member, and many were adopted after they had gained their freedom, but again, no two translations are alike. There are however, some Bible translations we must avoid.



A Heretical Bible

There is such a thing as bad Bibles out there, but what I mean is, there are bad translations that do a disservice to the Word of God. They change meanings, pronouns, definite articles, and so on, and that drastically altars biblical doctrine. For example, the New World Translation (NWT) used by Jehovah Witnesses is a heretical Bible and here’s why. The best manuscripts say, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God” (ESV, John 1:1), but the NWT inserts an indefinite article to make it “and the Word was “a” god,” not even capitalizing Jesus’ name as the Word and as God. What an insult to His deity, and by the way, there is no indefinite article in the Greek language (which they have used!), so this shows that this cult is actually reading their theology into the text and making the text fit their beliefs.



Other Bad Bibles

Other Bible translations that I do not recommend include the New Century Version (they take too much liberty), The Message (to conversational), and The Living Bible (too much paraphrasing). Some would include the NIV in this section because some texts found in other Bibles are missing in the NIV, but that’s because they are either not included in most manuscripts, or they were only found in later manuscripts (meaning, later copies), so the NIV did a good job in translating the Bible, so I disagree that the NIV is satanic and evil. If anything, the New World Translation (NWT) is satanic because it brings Jesus Christ down to being a mere man and not God, and associating him as a brother of Satan or Lucifer, but Jesus is God and has always been God, so I believe the NWT should be burned. There are deadly serious warnings that “if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book” (Rev 22:19), so “You shall not add to it or take from it” (Deut 12:32b). Jesus Christ Himself says, “I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book” (Rev 22:18).



Best Translations

I use the English Standard Version (ESV) for most of my studying and reading, and more often than not, I use it during Sunday messages, but if I need a bit of help with the Hebrew or Greek, I turn to the New American Standard Bible (NASB) because it may be the very best Bible in translating the original Hebrew, Greek, and Aramaic words. For accuracy, it is nearly second to none, and is close to the ESV for accuracy, but of course the King James Version is good too, and as I wrote, no Bible translation is without error. It’s just that some are much better than others. I do keep a variety of translations around for reading and studying similar passages, but I stick to the King James, ESV, or the NASB (in fewer cases) in most cases. These are all good Bible translations, so if you avoid the ones mentioned above, I think you’ll be fine, and a good ESV or NASB study Bible will broaden your understanding and reading of Scripture. I recommend both.



Conclusion

If you’re using the King James Version, please don’t toss it or some of your other translations, but if you have a NWT or similar Bible translations (like a paraphrase), I would toss them. They just take too much liberty with the manuscripts. If I find that the integrity of the gospel is violated, as with the NWT, it is not going to be in my house for long…at least until trash pickup day. I stick to what I know works, and for me, the King James Version, the ESV, the NASB, and even the New King James Version are worthy of our attention and should be in every believer’s bookcase. You may have other Bible translations that you don’t like and others that you do like that I have not mentioned here. If so, please leave a comment. I’d love to read your thoughts on this subject. We can all learn from one another about what the best Bible translation is.



Here is some related reading for you: Five Tips for Picking the Best Bible Translation  (At link)