|
Bible Study Resource 6a. The Superiority of the King James or Authorised Version (KJV/AV) 1b. The KJV is Superior Because it is Based on the Preserved Text All Christians should believe in the inspiration (2 Tim 3:16), and preservation of Scripture (Ps 12:6). Jesus used the OT Scripture during His earthly ministry, and considered every word of it to be inspired. In Matt 5:18, He said, "Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled." This surely implies that the Hebrew Scriptures have been preserved through the centuries, to the extent that every bit of it has been left intact. If God has so providentially preserved the words of the OT Scriptures so that none of them is lost, will He not also preserve the NT Scriptures in the same way? Based on God”s promises, we can say with good reason that we have the autograph of the NT in the wealth of extant manuscripts available today. Most of the extant NT manuscripts are of the Byzantine or Majority text-type which is well-represented by the Textus Receptus. The rest of the manuscripts belong to the Alexandrian or Minority text-type, and are reflected in the Critical Text of Westcott/Hort, UBSGNT, and NA. We believe the Majority Text is the Preserved Text, and the Minority Text, the Corrupt Text. 2b. The KJV is Superior Because of its Godly and Able Translators The King James Version is an excellent translation of the Holy Scriptures. It is a good fruit. It is a good fruit because it comes from a good tree (Matt 7:15-20). The KJV is a good translation because of good translators; in terms of their intellect and learning, they were brilliant; and in their faith and devotion towards God, they were vibrant. There are two main books that talk about the KJV translators: (1) Alexander McClure, Translator”s Revived (1858), and (2) Gustavus Paine, The Men Behind the KJV (1959). There were a total of 57 scholars of the highest rank who translated the KJV. All of them were not only men of great learning but also of great piety. They were skilled in the biblical languages, and lived in a period when the English language was at its most glorious height. It was a most providentially opportune time to translate the Scriptures into the English tongue. The translators were divided into 6 groups: 3 OT and 3 NT. An OT-NT pair worked on their assigned books at Cambridge, another pair at Westminster, and another at Oxford. They began their work in 1604 and completed it in 1611—a total of 7 years. I do not think that today one can assemble such an august company of devout Bible scholars and theologians. I do believe that the translating of the KJV was a providential act of God just like the 16th century Reformation. Why do we have such confidence in the KJV? We have such confidence in the KJV because of the intellectual and spiritual qualities of the men that produced it. 1c. The KJV Translators were Men of Great Piety The KJV translators evinced an intense love for God”s Word. It is disheartening to know that there are people today who translate the Bible because of the love of money. Bible-publishing is a money-spinning enterprise. Why do you think people spend time and energy to produce a new version once every few years? It can rake in millions of dollars. The KJV translators are thankfully not driven by money. They were driven by this desire that people need to read the Bible in its purity and accuracy in their own language. In their original preface to the KJV—"The Translators to the Reader"—they wrote, "But now what piety without truth? What truth (what saving truth) without the Word of God? What Word of God (whereof we may be sure) without Scripture? The Scriptures we are commanded to search. (John 5:39; Isaiah 8:20). They are commended that searched and studied them. (Acts 17:11 and 8:28-29). They are reproved that were unskilful in them, or slow to believe them (Matthew 22:29, Luke 24:25). They can make us wise unto salvation (2 Timothy 3:15). If we be ignorant, they will instruct us; if out of the way, they will bring us home; if out of order, they will reform us; if in heaviness, comfort us; if dull, quicken us; if cold inflame us. . . . Take up and read, take up and read the Scriptures . . ." Dr John Reynolds who is called "the father of the KJV" because it was he who proposed this project was a Puritan. And there were many others in the committee who were puritans. Now the puritans were famed for their piety. With such a reverent attitude and devotion to the Scriptures we are confident that they did not take their work lightly. Indeed, they did not frivolously throw out verses and passages, unlike the NIV which has removed so many verses from the Bible. Eg: Matt 18:11, "For the Son of man is come to save that which was lost." (In the NIV you have Matt 18:10, the next verse is not 11 but 12). Acts 8:37, "If thou believest with all thine heart, thou mayest. And he answered and said, I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God;" a total of 24 words missing! And such precious passages as John 7:58-8:11 on Jesus forgiving the woman taken in adultery and the last 12 verses of Mark are said to be not part of Scripture. What a lack of reverence for the Word of God by these NIV translators! We have scant confidence in these modern translators. There appears to be general lack of reverence for the Scriptures in these modern translators. We rather trust the KJV. 2c. The KJV Translators were Men of Great Learning Opponents of the KJV say that the KJ translators are outdated in their theology and in their learning. "We have better, more up-to-date theology," they say. What a deception and a false allegation! Spurgeon has well said, "There is nothing new in theology except that which is false." That is a true statement. Jeremiah words continue to ring true: "Thus saith the LORD, Stand ye in the ways, and see, and ask for the old paths, where is the good way, and walk therein, and ye shall find rest for your souls" (Jer 6:16). If you will read the lives of the KJ translators you will be amazed by their intellectual and academic achievements. I dare say in terms of ability, they outstrip the modern translators any time. Let me just introduce you to a few of them: Lancelot Andrews: Dr Andrews belonged to the Westminster team of translators, and was made chairman of the OT committee. Was Dr Andrews skilled in the OT languages? He was a graduate of Cambridge University where he devoted his time to the study of both modern and ancient languages, and to the study of theology. He was at home with 15 languages. (We are not talking about just a working knowledge of these languages. He was conversant with all 15). A very spiritual man, diligent in keeping his daily devotions (what we call QT). But do you know how he kept his QT. He would prayerfully read and meditate on the Scriptures, and then write his personal devotional thoughts in Greek. In other words, as he did his QT he wrote his RPG, not in English but in Greek. Nowadays, there are pastors who do not even keep their QT, much less write devotional manuals, and if they do, how many would write them in the Greek language? Who can match Dr Andrews” spiritual sensitivity and linguistic superiority today? William Bedwell: Dr Bedwell belonged to the Westminster team. He was an expert not only in Hebrew and Aramaic, but also in the cognate languages like Arabic, Persian, and other semitic languages. These extra-biblical languages are important in the translation of the OT because they are sister languages of Hebrew and Aramaic. Since they belong to the same family of semitic languages, knowing them will be helpful in identifying the meaning of certain rare words in the Bible. Dr Bedwell was so linguistically learned that he was able to produce an Arabic Lexicon or Dictionary (3 volumes), and a Persian Dictionary. Henry Savile: Sir Henry Saville belonged to the Oxford team. He was involved in the translation of the NT. Saville became famous for his knowledge of the Greek language. He was Queen Elizabeth”s personal Greek tutor. He was also equally proficient in Latin. He translated the histories of Cornelius Tacitus who was a Latin historian. Savile translated his work from Latin to English. He not only did this, but also edited the complete work of Chrysostom the famous Greek Church Father. His edition of Chrysostom amounted to 8 immense folios. A folio is equivalent to the size of a volume of the Encyclopedia Brittannica; he had 8 volumes of this size. A monumental work indeed. Do you find any of the modern translators producing such monumental works? John Bois: Dr John Bois belonged to the Cambridge team. He was born into a very godly Christian family and was deeply influenced by his father. At the age of 5 years he had read the Bible not in English but in Hebrew! By the age of 6 Bois could write in Hebrew! Not only had he such talent for the Hebrew language, he also was equally skilled in the Greek so much so that when he was a freshman in St John”s College, he wrote his personal letters to his Cambridge professors not in English but in Greek! FEBC students here will tell you it is difficult enough to translate the Greek NT into English, but Bois could compose his own essays in Greek when he was a student at Cambridge. It is thus no surprise that he later became professor of Greek at Cambridge. Can any of the modern translators say this of themselves? To be honest, I have spent 8 years of my life in full-time theological studies and most of those years involved an intensive study of the biblical languages of Greek and Hebrew and I studied a little Aramaic, but am I at home with the biblical languages as the KJV translaters were. I dare not say so. They were giants, I am but a dwarf. I would also venture to say that our modern translators are also pygmies compared to the KJV translators. Moreover, we are living in an age when Bible Colleges and Seminaries are giving up the study of the biblical languages. In FEBC we require our MDiv graduates to go through 3 years of Greek and 2 years of Hebrew, but there are seminaries in the States where you can get your MDiv without any of the languages, and no thesis to boot. (And mind you these are accredited seminaries). Even such reputable seminaries as Dallas and Grace Seminary have removed significant chunks of their traditionally strong language departments to make room for more practice-oriented courses. I wonder whether the Bible scholars of today really qualify to translate the Scriptures. How many of them if placed in 1600”s would be selected to be part of the KJV translation committee? Consider Alexander McClure”s Evaluation of the KJ Translators and Translation. The KJV is a result of God”s providence. McClure said, "As to the capability of those men, we may say again, that by the good Providence of God, their work was undertaken in a fortunate time. Not only had the English language, that singular compound, then ripened to its full perfection, but the study of Greek, and of the oriental tongues, . . . had then be carried to a greater extent in England than ever before or since. . . . it is confidently expected that the reader of these pages will yield to the conviction, that all the colleges of Great Britain and America, even in this proud day of boastings, could not bring together the same number of divines equally qualified by learning and piety for the great undertaking. Few indeed are the living names worthy to be enrolled with those mighty men. It would be impossible to convene out of any one Christian denomination, or out of all, a body of translators, on whom the whole Christian community would bestow such confidence as is reposed upon that illustrious company, or who would prove themselves as deserving of such confidence" (Translators Revived, 63-4). How do new versions and their translators compare to the KJV and its translators? According to McClure, "As to the Bible in its English form, it is safe to assume the impossibility of gathering a more competent body of translators, than those who did the work so well under King James”s commission. . . . And what has not been done by the most able and best qualified divines, is not likely to be done by obscure pedagogues, broken-down parsons, and sectaries of a single idea, and that a wrong one,--who, from different quarters, are talking big and loud of their ‘amended,” ‘improved,” and ‘only correct” and reliable re-translations, and getting up ‘American and Foreign Bible Unions” to print their sophomorical performances. How do such shallow adventurers appear along side of those venerable men . . . The newly-risen versionists, with all their ambitious and pretentious vaunts are not worthy to ‘carry satchels” after those masters of learning. Imagine our greenish contemporaries shut up with an Andrews, a Reynolds, a Ward, and a Bois, comparing notes on the meaning of the original Scriptures! It would soon be found, that all the aid of our moderns could render would be in snuffing the candles, . . . Let tinkers stick to the baser metals; and heaven forefend that they should clout the vessels of the sanctuary with their clumsy patches" (Translators Revived, 233-4). Consider Dean John William Burgon”s Confidence in the KJV. Dean Burgon, an Oxford scholar, was one of the greatest Bible defenders of the last century. In a time when Westcott and Hort sought to destroy the KJV by their corrupted Greek Text (today known as the eclectic text on which such versions as the RSV, NIV, and NASB are based). Dean Burgon was raised by the Lord to uphold and defend the KJV: "It may be confidently assumed that no ‘revision” of our Authorized Version, however judiciously executed, will ever occupy the place in public esteem which is actually enjoyed by the work of the translators of 1611,--The noblest literary work in the Anglo-Saxon language" (Revision Revised, 113). He enjoined us ". . . to cling the closer to the priceless treasure which was bequeathed to them by the piety and wisdom of their fathers. . . . How very seldom our Authorised Version is materially wrong; how faithful and trustworthy, on the contrary, it is throughout" (Revision Revised, 232). Consider also Burgon”s admiration of the KJ translators: ". . . the plain fact being that the men of 1611 produced a work of real genius: seizing with generous warmth the meaning and intention of the sacred Writers" (Revision Revised, 167). "Verily, those men understood their craft! ‘There were giants in those days.” . . . the Spirit of their God was mightily upon them" (Revision Revised, 196). I want to echo the words of Dean Burgon on attempts to produce a new translation: "As something intended to supersede our present English Bible, we are thoroughly convinced that the project of a rival translation is not to be entertained for a moment. For ourselves, we deprecate it entirely" (Revision Revised, 113-4). I dare say that the Bible scholars, theologians, and linguists of today fail to come even close to the calibre of scholarship and spirituality that we find in the KJ translators. I sincerely doubt that the KJV will ever be surpassed by a superior translation. In any case, until the Lord providentially raises up equally faithful and competent servants to give us a new version which is equally accurate and reliable, let us stick to the good old version—the KJV. 3b. The KJV is Superior Because it is an Accurate Translation The KJV uses a superior method of translation. The KJV employs the verbal/formal over against the dynamic equivalence method of translation. The verbal/formal equivalence method is the only acceptable method for the translation of the Holy Scriptures. Why? Simply because the Bible is the verbally inspired Word of God. God gave a very serious warning in Rev 22:18, "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." In any attempt to translate the Scriptures, it is paramount that there should be no addition to, subtraction from, and changing of God”s Word. It must be word-for-word, not thought-for-thought. The dynamic equivalence (a thought-for-thought) method may be well and good for other literature, but certainly not the Scriptures. The Bible”s divine origin and its verbal inerrancy forbid it. "Blood" must be translated "blood," and not "death" (so TEV), and "Joseph" must be translated "Joseph," and not "the child”s father" (so NIV). 4b. The KJV is Superior Because it is Faithful to Historic Protestant Theology Those who say that all versions are good argue that there is no essential difference between the KJV and the modern versions in terms of theology. Although they admit that there are differences, they say that no vital doctrines are affected in all these new translations. I contend that this claim is false. We have already seen clear examples above of how these 20th century versions have unfaithfully manipulated the text affecting theology. We have discussed how certain doctrines have been affected. Let us recapitulate: (1) Inspiration of Scripture (2 Tim 3:16), (2) Preservation of Scripture (Ps 12:6), (3) Virgin Birth of Christ (Isa 7:14), (4) Eternal Generation of Christ (John 1:14,18, 3:16,18, 1 John 4:9), (5) the Holy Trinity (1 John 5:7-8), (6) the deity and humanity of Christ (1 Tim 3:16), and many others (see also D A Waite, Defending the King James Bible, 131-183). Some will argue that the absence of the Johannine Comma (1 John 5:7f) does not affect the doctrine of the Trinity because there are many other biblical passages that teach it. The doctrine is thus not lost. While the doctrine may not be lost, a very strong testimony for it has surely been. Which other scriptural passage is as crystal clear as 1 John 5:7 in expressing the unity of the three Persons of the Godhead? We lose a very valuable proof-text by such flippant statements against the traditional preserved text in favour for the critical cut-up text. This is not a small matter as some would like to think. Paul warned, "a little leaven leaveneth the whole lump" (Gal 5:9). The 7% (NIV”s Ken Barker says 2%) of missing words in the Scripture in the modern versions may be considered very little, but it is this little leaven is destructive to God”s Word, and to His Church. |